1. In the beginning. These words remind us of the fact that everything human has a beginning. He alone who sits enthroned the sovereign Lord of time, is without beginning or end. The opening words of Scripture thus draw a striking contrast between all that is human, temporal, and finite, and that which is divine, eternal, and infinite. Reminding us of our human limitations, these words point us to Him who is ever the same, and whose years have no end (Heb. 1:10-12; Ps. 90:2, 10). Our finite minds cannot think of “the beginning” without thinking of God, for He “is the beginning” (Col. 1:18; cf. John 1:1-3). Wisdom, and all other good things, have their beginning with Him (Ps. 111:10; James 1:17). And if we are ever again to resemble our Maker, our lives and all our plans must have a new beginning in Him (Gen. 1:26, 27; cf. John 3:5; 1 John 3:1-3). It is our privilege to enjoy the confident assurance that “he which hath begun a good work” in us “will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). He is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). Let us never forget the sublime fact implicit in these words—“in the beginning God.”
This first verse of Holy Writ brings into sharp focus one of the age-old controversies between Bible believing Christians on the one hand and skeptics, atheists, and various shades of materialists on the other. The latter, who seek in different ways and in different degrees to explain the universe without God, contend that matter/energy is eternal. If this be true, and if matter has the power to evolve, first into the simplest forms of life and then into the more complex, until man is reached, God is indeed unnecessary.
Genesis 1:1 affirms that God is before all else and that He is the one and only cause of all else. This verse is the foundation of all right thinking in regard to the material world. Here is set forth the impressive truth that “in the formation of our world, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter” (8T 258).
Pantheism, the ancient heresy that robs God of personality by diffusing Him throughout all the universe, and thus makes Him synonymous with the totality of creation, is also exposed and refuted by Gen. 1:1. There is no basis for the doctrine of pantheism when one believes that God lived serene and supreme before there was a creation and thus stands above and apart from that which He has created.
No declaration could be more appropriate as an introduction to Holy Writ. At the outset the reader is introduced to an Omnipotent Being, possessed of personality, will, and purpose, who, existing before all else and thus dependent on nought else, exercised His divine will and “created the heaven and the earth.”
No discussion of secondary questions regarding the mystery of a divine creation, either as to time or method, should be allowed to blur the fact that the real dividing line between a true and a false belief on the subject of God and the origin of our earth is acceptance or rejection of the truth set forth in this verse.
Right here a word of caution should be said. For long centuries theologians have speculated on the word “beginning,” hoping to discover more of God’s mysterious ways than infinite wisdom has seen fit to reveal. See, for example, the discussion of the false ruin and restoration theory of creation in the Additional Note at the close of this chapter. But all speculation is idle. We know nothing of the method of creation beyond the terse Mosaic declaration, “God said,” “and it was so,” which is the mysterious and majestic overtone of the creation anthem. To set down as the basis of our reasoning that God must have done thus and so in creating the world, else nature’s laws would have been violated, is to darken counsel with words and to give aid and comfort to the skeptic, who has ever insisted that the whole Mosaic record is incredible because it allegedly violates the laws of nature. Why should we attempt to be wise above that which is written?
Very particularly, nothing is gained by speculating as to when the matter constituting our planet was brought into existence. On the time aspect of the creation of our earth and all upon it, Genesis makes two statements: (1) “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (v. 1). (2) “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made” (ch. 2:2). Related scriptures add nothing to what is set forth in these two texts regarding the time involved in creation. To the question: When did God create “the heaven and the earth”? we can only answer, “In the beginning.” And to the question: When did God complete His work? we can only answer, “On the seventh day God ended his work” (ch. 2:2), “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day” (Ex. 20:11).
These remarks regarding the creation account are made, not in an attempt to close the discussion, but as a confession that we are unprepared to speak with certainty beyond what is clearly revealed. The very fact that so much rests upon the creation record—even the whole edifice of Scripture—prompts the devout and prudent Bible student to conform his declarations to the explicit words of Holy Writ. Indeed, when the broad fields of speculation tempt him to roam afar in uncharted areas of time and space, he cannot do better than to meet the temptation with the simple rejoinder, “It is written.” There is always safety within the protecting bounds of Scriptural quotation marks.
God created. The verb “to create” is from the Heb., bara’ which in the form here used describes an activity of God, never of men. God creates “the wind” (Amos 4:13), “a clean heart” (Ps. 51:10), and “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17). The Hebrew words that we translate “to make,” ‘asah, “to form,” yaṣar, and others, frequently (but not exclusively) used in connection with human activity, imply pre-existing matter. All three words are employed in describing the creation of man. The very first words of the Bible point to the fact that the creation bears the imprint of God’s own activity. The opening page of Holy Writ makes the reader acquainted with a God to whom all things animate and inanimate owe their very existence (see Heb. 11:3). The “earth” here mentioned is manifestly not the dry land, which was not separated from the waters till the third day, but our whole planet.
2. Without form, and void. More exactly, “waste and void,” tohu wabohu. This signifies a state of wasteness and emptiness, but without implying that the earth was once perfect and then was made waste or desolate.
When the words tohu wabohu appear together in other passages, such as Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23, they seem to be borrowed from this text, but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with nonexistence, or nothingness (Isa. 40:17, 23; 49:4). Job 26:7 demonstrates the correct meaning of this word. The second half of this passage states that God “hangeth the earth upon nothing,” and the first half has the parallel “he stretcheth out the north over tuho [the emptiness].” This text in Job shows clearly the meaning of tuho in Gen. 1:2, in which this and the synonymous word bohu indicate that the earth was shapeless and lifeless. Its elements were all mingled together, completely unorganized and inanimate.
Darkness was upon the face of the deep. The “deep,” from a root “to roar,” “to rage,” is frequently applied to the raging waters, the roaring waves, or the flood, and hence the depths of the sea (Ps. 42:7; Ex. 15:5; Deut. 8:7; Job 28:14; 38:16). “Deep” is an old word, and is here used like a proper name. The Babylonians, who retained some vague memory of the true creation story for many centuries, actually personified this word, tehom, and applied it in their mythology to a deity, Tiamat, out of whose corpse they believed the earth was created. The Biblical record shows that originally there was no light on earth and that the surface matter was in a fluid state, because “the face of the deep” stands parallel to “the face of the waters” in this verse.
The Spirit of God moved. “Spirit,” ruach. In harmony with Scriptural usage, the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. From this place onward, throughout the whole Scripture, the Spirit of God has the role of the divine agent of God in all creative acts, whether of the earth, of nature, of the church, of the new life, or of the new man. See on v. 26 for a comment on Christ’s relationship to creation.
The word here rendered “moved” is merachepheth, which cannot rightly be translated “brooded,” although it has this meaning in Syriac, a post-Biblical Aramaic dialect. The word occurs but twice elsewhere in the OT. It appears in Jer. 23:9, where it has the meaning “to tremble,” “to shake,” whereas in Deut. 32:11 it is used to describe the fluttering of an eagle over its young. The eagle does not brood over the living young but hovers watchfully and protectingly over them.
The work of God’s Spirit must have some connection with the activity that was presently to be initiated, an activity bringing order out of chaos. The Spirit of God was already present, ready to act as soon as the order should be given. The Holy Spirit has always been doing this very work. This divine Agent has ever been present to assist in the work of creation and redemption, to reprove and strengthen wayward souls, to comfort the sorrowing, and to present the believer’s prayers in an acceptable form to God.
3. And God said. The record of each of the six creation days opens with this announcement. “He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9), declares the psalmist, and the apostle says that we understand through faith “that the worlds were framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). The phrase “God said” has offended some as making God too much like a human being. But how could the inspired writer have conveyed to finite minds the act of creation carried out by the infinite God except by using terms that mortal man can understand? The fact that the utterances of God are repeatedly connected with activities performed by God (vs. 7, 16, 21, 27) indicates convincingly that a revelation of God’s creative power is being expressed in human language.
Let there be light. Without light there could be no life; and as the Creator began the work of bringing order from chaos and of introducing various forms of plant and animal life upon the earth, it was essential that there be light. Light is a visible form of energy, which by its action on plants transforms inorganic elements and compounds into food for both man and beast and controls many other natural processes necessary to life.
Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence. As physical light is essential to physical life, so divine light is necessary if rational beings are to have moral and spiritual life. “God is light” (1 John 1:5); and to those in whose hearts the work of recreating the divine likeness is going on apace, He comes again today bidding the shadows of sin, uncertainty, and discouragement flee, saying, “Let there be light.”
4. God saw. This expression, repeated six times (vs. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), conveys in human language an activity of God—the evaluation of each single act of creation as meeting completely the plan and will of its Maker. As we, by beholding and examining the products of our efforts, are prepared to declare that they meet our plans and purpose, so God declares, after every creative act, that His products agree completely with His plan.
God divided the light from the darkness. At the outset only darkness existed on this formless earth. A change took place with the entrance of light. Now darkness and light exist side by side, but separate from each other.
5. Called the light Day. Names are given to the light and the darkness. The giving of a name was always an important act in antiquity. Names had their meaning and were carefully chosen. God later commissioned Adam to give names to the animals. He sometimes changed His servants’ names to make them agree with their life experience or character. He instructed the earthly parents of His Son concerning the name they should give to the Saviour. During the creation week we find God giving names even to the lifeless products of His creative power.
The evening and the morning were the first day. Literally “evening was, morning was, day one.” Thus the cryptic description of the first momentous day of God’s creation week closes. Many and diversified explanations of this statement have been given. It indicates clearly the duration of each of the seven parts of the creation week, and is repeated five more times in this chapter (vs. 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Some have thought creative act lasted one night, from the evening to the morning; and others, that every day began with the morning, although the Inspired Record states plainly that the evening preceded the morning.
Many scholars have taken this expression to mean a long, indefinite period of time, believing that some of the divine activities of the following days, as for instance the creation of the plants and animals, could not have been accomplished within a literal day. They think they find a justification for this interpretation in the words of Peter, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8). That this text cannot be used to ascertain the length of the creation days is obvious when one reads the rest of the verse, “and a thousand years as one day.” The context of Peter’s words makes it clear that he wishes to stress the timelessness of God. The Creator can do in a day the work of a thousand years, and a period of a thousand years, a long time for those waiting for God’s judgments to be fulfilled, may be considered by Him as only one day. Psalms 90:4 conveys the same thought.
The literal statement “evening was [with the following hours of the night], and morning was [with the succeeding hours of the day], day one” is clearly a description of an astronomical day, that is, a day of 24 hours’ duration. It is the equivalent of the later Hebrew compound “evening-morning” of Dan. 8:14, which the KJV has translated “days,” here meaning prophetic days, and of Paul’s Greek word, nuchthemeron, translated “a night and a day” (2 Cor. 11:25). Thus the Hebrews, who were never in doubt about the meaning of this expression, began the day with sunset and ended it with the following sunset (Lev. 23:32; Deut. 16:6). Furthermore, the language of the fourth commandment leaves no shadow of doubt that the evening and morning of the creation record are the component sections of an earthly day. This commandment, referring in unmistakable words to the week of creation, declares, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day” (Ex. 20:11).
The tenacity with which so many commentators cling to the idea that the days of creation were long periods of time, even thousands of years, largely finds its explanation in the fact that they attempt to make the inspired creation record agree with the theory of evolution. Geologists and biologists have taught men to believe that this earth’s early history covers millions of years, in which the geological formations were slowly taking shape and living species were evolving. Throughout its sacred pages the Bible contradicts this evolution theory. The belief in a divine and instantaneous creation as the result of words spoken by God stands in complete opposition to the theory held by the majority of scientists and many theologians today that the world and all upon it came into being through a slow process of evolution lasting for untold ages.
Another reason why many commentators declare that the days of creation were long periods of time is that they reject the seventh-day Sabbath. A famous commentary thus expresses this thought: “The duration of the seventh day of necessity determines the length of the other six. … God’s sabbatic rest is understood by the best interpreters of Scripture to have continued from creation’s close until the present hour; so that consistency demands the previous six days to be considered as not of short, but of indefinite, duration” (Pulpit). This kind of reasoning moves in a circle. Because the seventh-day Sabbath, so clearly defined in Holy Scripture as a weekly recurring day of rest, is rejected as such, the seventh day of the creation week is declared to have lasted to the present time. On the basis of this un-Scriptural explanation the duration of all other creation days is also expanded. Sound Scriptural interpretation has no sympathy with this kind of reasoning, but insists on giving a literal meaning to the text, following the example of the divine Expounder of the Word, who parried every attack of the adversary by declaring, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
The Scriptures speak clearly and plainly of seven days of creation (Ex. 20:11) and not of periods of undefined duration. We are therefore bound to declare emphatically that the first day of creation, indicated by the expression in Hebrew, “evening was, morning was, day one,” was a 24-hour day.
6. A firmament. Or, “an expanse.” The work of the second creation day consisted in the formation of the firmament. The great mass of primeval “waters” was divided into two separate bodies. The “waters which were above the firmament” (v. 7) are generally considered by commentators to be water vapor. The climatic conditions of the originally perfect earth were different from those existing today.
Explorations carried out in the far north have proved that luxurious tropical forests once covered those land areas that are now buried under eternal ice and snow. It is generally conceded that pleasant climatic conditions prevailed during this earth’s early history. Unknown were the extremes of cold and heat that can make life unpleasant in most regions of the world and virtually impossible in some.
8. God called the firmament Heaven. The product of the creative power of God on the second day of the creation week received a name, even as the light of the first day had received one. In the Hebrew as well as in the modern translation the word “heaven” is the name given both to the abode of God and to the firmament. In this verse “heaven” refers to the atmospheric heavens that appear to the human eye as a canopy, or dome, vaulting our earth, and generally called sky.
No life is possible without air. Plants need it as well as living creatures. Without the atmosphere our earth would be lifeless like the moon, tremendously hot in that part which is exposed to the sun and extremely cold in other sections. Not one sprout of plant life would be found anywhere, and no creature could exist for any length of time. Are we grateful for this God-given atmosphere?
9. Let the waters. The third creative act, performed during the first part of the third day, was a separation of the water from the dry land. The inspired pen of the psalmist describes this event in the following picturesque and poetical terms: “The waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them. Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass” (Ps. 104:6-9, RSV). The gathering of the waters into one place implies no more than that they were, from this day forward, to be collected into “one place,” and restrained within bounds in a place by themselves, so as to admit the exposure of the earth’s soil. It must have been a grand spectacle to any heavenly observer to see hills rise up out of the water that had so completely covered the face of the earth. Where there had been water only as far as the eye could see, great land areas suddenly rose up and gave to this earth an entirely new appearance.
10. God saw that it was good. God’s eye rested, now, with pleasure and satisfaction on the finished product of the third day of creation. “It was good.” That primeval dry land would scarcely have seemed good to us. It was a world of verdureless valleys and hills and plains, upheaved from beneath the waters. Nowhere was there even a blade of grass or a clinging lichen. Yet is seemed good to its Maker, who could see it in relation to the uses for which He had made it, and as a fit preparatory step to the new wonders He was going to introduce.
11. Let the earth bring forth. After the separation of dry land from the water, another divine order was given on that third day: vegetation was summoned into existence. Some have considered the first of the three terms employed in the divine command a general term for plants, including the second and the third. However, it is preferable to take them as distinct classes.
Grass. Heb., deshe‘, “to be green,” “to grow green.” “to sprout.” This word designates green sprouts and tender herbs—the various kinds of plants that supply food for the animals. “Grass” is probably used here as a synonym of the word “herb,” ‘eśeb, when the latter appears without the qualifying expression “yielding seed” (see v. 30; Ps. 23:2).
The herb yielding seed. “Herb,” ‘eśeb, is the more mature herbage, in which the seed is the most striking characteristic, providing one of the two kinds of food designated by God to be consumed by human beings. (v. 29).
The fruit tree. Three characteristics of fruit-bearing trees are here noted: (1) the bearing of fruit, (2) the enclosing of seed within the fruit, and (3) the bearing of this fruit “upon” or above the earth. These trees were to provide man with another source of food (v. 29).
12. The earth brought forth. The vegetation of the third day sprang from the soil. This does not mean that the power to produce life-containing plants was in the soil. The idea of spontaneous generation is as alien to Scripture as it is to science.
After his kind. This expression occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, and altogether 30 times in the books of Moses, especially in Gen. 1, 6, and 7; in Lev. 11; and in Deut. 14. Reference is to kinds of animals and plants, not to their reproductive behavior. It is, however, a fact of nature that living things do reproduce offspring that resemble their parents. Variations within certain limits are possible, but those limits fall far short of creating distinctly new kinds of plants and animals. See Gen. 6:20; 7:14; Lev. 11:14-16, 29; Deut. 14:13-15.
14. Let there be lights. “Lights,” me’oroth, is not the same as “light,” ’or, of vs. 3 and 4; it means sources of light, light holders, luminaries. The expression that they are set in the firmament, or expanse of heaven, is chosen because it is there that the earthly inhabitant sees them.
To divide the day from the night. To regulate and continue from that time forward the difference between light and darkness, a difference that had existed ever since God decreed light on the first day.
For signs. These celestial bodies marked special acts of God’s favor or displeasure as in Joshua’s (Joshua 10:12, 13), and Hezekiah’s times (2 Kings 20:11), and on the crucifixion day (Matt. 27:45). “Falling stars” served as one of the signs of Christ’s second coming (Matt. 24:29).
Some have mistakenly thought that the celestial bodies were designed also to determine the individual destinies of men. Astrologers have appealed to v. 14 to justify their practice. However, the Bible so vigorously opposes any form of divination and fortunetelling that the thought has to be emphatically rejected that God appointed the sun, moon, and stars to serve astrologers as guides in predicting human affairs and destinies. Jeremiah warns the Hebrews not to be afraid of the signs of heaven, before which the heathen tremble in vain terror (Jer. 10:2); and Isaiah speaks with taunting irony against the astrologers, stargazers, and foretellers, on whose counsel it is folly and wickedness to rely (Isa. 47:13, 14). Although the superstition of reading the destiny of man in the stars never took root among the ancient Israelites, they did not have enough moral strength to resist in general the example of star worship of their pagan neighbors (Jer. 19:13; Eze. 8:16; Zeph. 1:5).
For seasons. Yearly returning festival periods and other definite times were to be regulated by the movement of the celestial bodies (Ps. 104:19; Zech. 8:19). These bodies have, moreover, a definite periodic influence upon agriculture, navigation, and other human occupations, as well as upon the course of animal and vegetable life, as for instance the breeding time of animals and the migration of birds (Jer. 8:7).
For days, and years. The days and years are fixed by the movement of the earth in relation to the sun, which in conjunction with that of the moon has provided men of all ages with the basis for calendars—lunar, solar, or a combination of both.
15. For lights. Not to introduce light for the first time to this world, for God decreed light on the first day, but to serve as a permanent arrangement for the distribution of light for this world.
16. He made the stars also. The words, “he made,” have been supplied. As to the origin of the stars two principal views have been set forth: (1) The stars were brought into existence during creation week, along with the sun and moon. (2) The “stars,” though created earlier, are here mentioned, in passing, by Moses, inasmuch as he is discussing the luminaries of the heavens. The first view necessitates the conclusion that prior to creation week the vast universe was an empty void. This conclusion seems unwarranted.
However, on this as on many other cryptic declarations of Scripture regarding God’s mysterious acts, we should be slow to dogmatize. We should not forget that the primary truth Moses sought to present in regard to the origin of the sun, moon, and stars is that all are the result of God’s creative power. Here is a further refutation of the ancient but ever-recurring heresy of the eternity of matter.
18. It was good. Unlike our present earth, which has changed much as the result of the introduction of sin, the celestial bodies have not suffered from the results of man’s transgression, and reflect their Creator’s power. It is a universally known fact that the laws of the universe are faithfully obeyed by all celestial bodies. Astronomers and navigators are sure that no deviations from established rules occur in the astronomical world. They know that these heavenly bodies will not disappoint them, that they can be trusted because of their continual obedience to the laws laid down for them.
20. Let the waters. We have here the populating of the water and the air by the creation of marine and winged creatures. The original may be translated, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly living creature that moveth,” rendering more clearly in English the Hebrew phrase that means literally, “Let the waters swarm with swarms.” The verb here translated “to swarm” is also used with the meaning “to multiply abundantly.” The term applies not only to fishes but to all water animals, from the greatest to the least, and also to reptiles.
Creature that hath life. The original of this phrase, nephesh chayyah, makes a clear distinction between the animals and the vegetation created two days earlier. It is true that plants have life as do animals and possess certain functions that resemble those of animals, but the fact remains that a marked difference exists between the plant and animal worlds. The animals are in possession of organs that allow them to make decisions, to move about in search of food, and to feel pain, joy, or sorrow, to a greater or less degree.
Hence they can be called creatures, a word that cannot be applied to plants. This must be the meaning of the much-discussed Hebrew word nephesh, translated rightly “creature” in this verse, a term which attributes to the animal a higher form of life than to the plant, which is not a nephesh. The early translators correctly understood that the term cannot mean “soul” in this passage, and rendered it in a way that correctly conveys the thought of the inspired author.
Fowl that may fly. The waters were to produce the water animals but not the birds, as the KJV appears to indicate. Chapter 2:19 states that “every fowl of the air” was formed by God “out of the ground.” The correct rendering of the Hebrew text of ch. 1:20, “and let fowl fly above the earth,” disposes of this seeming difficulty. The word “fowl,” literally “winged beings,” should rather read “birds.” Both domestic and wild birds are included.
21. God created great whales. For the second time the word “created,” bara’, is used in this chapter to indicate the introduction of something entirely new, the creation of living creatures. In carrying out His word, God created the great sea animals, tanninim. The translation “whales” is too limited in scope. The word has different meanings, like “serpent” (Ex. 7:9, 10, 12) and “dragon” (Isa. 51:9; Eze. 29:3), but must mean “sea monster” in this passage and in Ps. 148:7.
Moveth. The verb “to move,” ramaś, is especially descriptive of creeping animals (Gen. 9:2), either on land (Gen. 7:14) or in the water (Ps. 69:34), though here it clearly signifies aquatic creatures.
After their kind. As in the case of the plants created on the third day, the statement is made that the fish as well as the birds were created “after their kind,” explicitly indicating that the distinct kinds of animals we see were established at creation and not through a process of development as evolutionists maintain (see on v. 12).
Why birds and fish were created on the same day is not to be explained by any supposed similarity between the air and the water as Luther, Calvin, and others thought. Again, it is not stated that only a single pair was created of each kind; on the contrary, the words, “Let the waters swarm with living creatures,” seem to indicate that the animals were created, not only in a rich variety of kinds, but in large numbers of individuals. The fact that but one human being was created at first, by no means warrants the conclusion that the animals were created singly also.
God saw that it was good. The earth must have appeared most pleasing to the Creator when He beheld it at the end of this fifth day. Not only verdant hills, sparkling streams, and blue lakes, but living creatures, moving, swimming, and flying, gave to this world for the first time the quality of life it had not possessed before. Here were creatures that could even sing the praises of their Creator, who revealed some measure of understanding, by finding the right kind of food (Matt. 6:26), by building nests as shelters (Matt. 8:20), and by knowing their times of migration (Jer. 8:7).
The mighty works of God performed on the previous days were truly wonderful, but nature received an ornament on the fifth day. Without the vegetation created on the third day the world would present an extremely uninviting appearance. Much more would it be devoid of attraction and cheerfulness if the myriads of living beings with which it is populated were absent. Every one of these small or large creatures should teach us a lesson concerning the marvelous handiwork of the great God, to whom, as the author and preserver of all life, we owe adoration. These creatures should give us a wholesome respect for life, which we cannot impart but should carefully protect and not destroy.
22. God blessed them. The fifth day’s work not only was pronounced to be good by the Creator but received a blessing, which was given neither to the inanimate products of God’s creation nor to the plants. This benediction, which focuses on their propagation and increase, “be fruitful, and multiply,” became a standard formula of blessing (chs. 35:11; 48:4).
24. The living creature. Like the third day, the sixth is distinguished by a double creative act, the production of the land animals and the creation of man. After the sea and air were filled with living creatures, nephesh chayyah (see v. 20), the word of God went forth to the earth, to produce living beings after their kind. These are divided into three classes:
Cattle. From behemah, derived from the root baham, “to be dumb,” meaning “dumb animal.” The word generally denotes the larger domesticated quadrupeds (see Gen. 47:18; Ex. 13:12; etc.), but occasionally the larger land animals as a whole (Prov. 30:30; Eccl. 3:19; etc.).
Creeping thing. From remeś, which denotes the smaller animals that move either without feet, or with feet that are scarcely perceptible, such as worms, insects, and reptiles. Here the land remeś are meant, the remeś of the sea having been created on the previous day.
Beast of the earth. From chayetho ’ereṣ. This old and unusual Hebrew term denotes the freely roving wild animals.
25. The beast of the earth. The order of creation of living creatures here given differs from that of v. 24, the last group of the previous verse being the first one here enumerated. This is a well-known arrangement in Hebrew speech called “inverted parallelism” (see Gen. 10:1, 2, 6, 21; Prov. 14:16, 17).
After his kind. The statement refers to all three classes of living creatures, each of which has its distinct kinds. These inspired words refute the evolution theory, which declares that higher forms of life developed from lower ones and which suggests that it may yet be possible to produce living matter out of inanimate earth. Although scientific study confirms the Biblical declaration that all animate organisms are made out of the earth, containing nothing else in elements than what the earth possesses, scientists have never been able to produce from lifeless matter one single cell that was able to live and reproduce its kind.
God saw that it was good. With the usual word of approbation the short record of the creation of all land animals closes, and the author hastens to the account of the creation of man, in which the work of creation culminates.
26. Let us make man. The Sacred Record proclaims at the very outset the preeminence of man above all the other creatures of the earth. The plural “us” was regarded by the early church theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the three persons of the Godhead. The word “us” requires the presence of at least two persons counseling together. The statements that man was to be made in “our” image and was made in “God’s” image leads to the conclusion that those counseling must both be persons of the same Godhead. This truth, implied in the OT, in various passages such as the one discussed here, and Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14; etc., is fully and clearly revealed in the NT, where we are told in unmistakable terms that Christ, the second person of the Godhead, called God by the Father Himself (Heb. 1:8), was associated with His Father in the work of creation. Texts like John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2 teach us not only that God the Father created all things through His Son but also that all life is preserved by Christ.
Even though it is true that this full light of truth did not shine upon these OT texts previous to the revelations contained in the NT, and that distinct understanding of the different persons of the Godhead was not so readily discernible from the OT passages alone, the initial evidence of the existence of Christ at the time of the creation as colaborer with His Father is present on the first page of the Bible. These texts offer no difficulties for those who believe in the inspiration of the OT as well as the NT, in view of the fact that one part explains the other and that both fit harmoniously together, like the stones of a beautiful mosaic. Not only do vs. 26 and 27 contain hints of the activity of Christ as the second person of the Godhead in this creation work, but v. 2 mentions the Holy Spirit as collaborating in the same work. We are therefore justified in declaring that the first evidence for the sublime mystery of the Godhead is found on the first page of the Bible, a mystery that is placed in clearer light as the pen of inspiration of the different authors of the Bible books was moved to reveal this truth more fully.
The word “man” is ’adam in Hebrew, the very word God employed in naming the father of the human race (ch. 5:2). The meaning of this word has been variously explained. It is descriptive of either his color, from ’adam, “to be red”; or his appearance, from an Arabic root which signifies “to shine,” thus making Adam “the brilliant one”; or his nature as God’s image, from dam, “likeness”; or, and most probably, his origin, “the ground,” from ’adamah, “the one of the soil.”
In our image. “Man was to bear God’s image, both in outward resemblance and in character” (PP 45). That image was most evident in terms of his spiritual nature. He became a “living soul,” or rather living being, endowed with a free will, a self-conscious personality.
This nature reflected the divine holiness of its Maker until sin shattered the divine likeness. It is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the “express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).
And let them have dominion. The relationship of man to the rest of the creation was to be one of rulership. The use of the plural “them” shows that God planned from the very beginning to create more than one individual. By transferring to Adam ruling power over “all the earth,” God planned to make man His representative, or viceroy, over this planet. That the beast of the field is not mentioned has been taken by some commentators as an indication that the animals that are now wild were not subjected to Adam. This opinion is untenable. The plants are also missing in the enumeration of created works subjected to Adam, although no one will deny that man has had the right to rule over the vegetation to the present day and that the plants must have been included in the phrase “all the earth.” This phrase, in fact, covers everything on this earth not mentioned by name, including “the beasts of the field” (Ps. 8:6-8). However, God limited man’s supremacy to this earth, not transferring to Adam rulership over the celestial bodies.
27. So God created man. The account of the accomplishment of the divine purpose is expressed in a form of Hebrew poetry, common in all poetic books of the Hebrew Bible, in which the thought expressed in the first part of a stanza is repeated with slight variations in words but not in meaning in the second or even in the third part of the stanza, as in our verse:
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.”
Moses, who has given us other samples of his poetic ability (see Ex. 15; Deut. 32, 33; Ps. 90), was the first of all the inspired writers who told of God’s wondrous works in words of poetry. When he had reached the point in his record that told of the creation of man, the crown of God’s work on this earth, he left the ordinary narrative style and employed poetry.
In his own image. Noteworthy is the use of the singular, “his.” The plural of v. 26 reveals that the Deity possesses plurality in unity, whereas v. 27 emphasizes that the plurality of God does not negate God’s unity.
Male and female. A new element is introduced in the information given about the creation of man by mentioning differences in sex. The two words “male” and “female” are translations of Hebrew adjectives that indicate the sex of the two individuals. The blessing of fertility pronounced over the animals (v. 22) implies that they must have been created likewise with sexual differences, but this fact is not mentioned. Probably a special reason existed for mentioning it in connection with the creation of man. That reason may spring from the fact that only in man does the duality of sex find its expression in the institution of holy wedlock. This verse prepares us for the revelation concerning God’s plan for the creation of the family that is presented in ch. 2.
28. And God blessed them. The blessings of God conferred upon the living creatures the day before were repeated at the end of the sixth day with special additions appropriate to man. God blessed “them” not “him,” indicating that the creation of Eve must have occurred before the sixth day had passed by and that the blessings and responsibilities conferred on them were to be jointly shared by both in equal manner.
God said unto them. A difference exists between the introductions to the blessings of vs. 22 and 28 that is worth noticing. The blessing for the animals was pronounced regarding them, “God blessed them, saying,” whereas the blessing for the human race was expressed “unto them.” As intelligent beings they were able to listen to God and to receive communications. This verse contains the first revelation of God to man.
Be fruitful. The Creator’s benediction had respect, in the first instance, to the propagation and perpetuation of the species, a blessing that has never been rescinded by God and that is the source of hundreds of millions of human beings who now fill all continents of this world. The divine commission has been understood by various commentators to indicate that the reproduction of human beings should not continue endlessly, but was to cease when the earth was filled with human beings and their animal subjects.
The word translated “replenish” does not support the false doctrine that at some remote time in the past this world was depopulated, and that Gen. 1 is the record of its restoration. “Replenish the earth” may be accurately translated, “Fill the earth” (RSV). See note at end of chapter.
Subdue it. This revelation also contains instruction concerning man’s duty and destiny, to rule over the earthly creation works, a commission expressed almost in the same words as those of the divine council recorded in v. 26. The only difference is the additional phrase, “subdue it,” granting man the right to utilize for his necessities the vast resources of the earth, by agricultural and mining operations, by geographical research, scientific discovery, and mechanical invention.
29. Every herb. Provision for the sustenance of the newly appointed monarch and his subjects is next made. We learn from the divine record that man was to eat of the products of both field and tree, in other words of grain, nuts, and fruit; the animals, to eat of “every green herb,” vegetables, or green plants, and grass.
The wording of this regulation reveals that it was not the will of God that man should slaughter animals for food, or that animals should prey upon one another; consequently, the violent and often painful destruction of life by man and animals is a result of the entry of sin into the world. It was not till after the Flood that God gave man permission to eat of the flesh of animals (see ch. 9:3). Even ancient pagan legends speak of a golden age of innocence, when man abstained from killing animals (Ovid Met. I. 103-106). That no animal of any kind ate flesh at the first may be inferred from the prophetic announcements in Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25, of the new earth state, where the cessation of sin and the complete transformation of the world into the kingdom of God are accompanied by the cessation of slaughter of any of God’s creatures.
The clear teaching of Scripture that death entered the world through sin shows clearly that God originally intended that neither man nor animals should take life in order to provide themselves with food.
All arguments based on the premise that it is necessary to kill animals to check their excessive increase are of doubtful value. It is futile to speculate on what would have happened to this world if animals and human beings had multiplied unchecked in perpetuity. God certainly had made His plans to meet changing conditions as they would arise. These plans have not been revealed to us, because sin entered the world before the need arose to check an excessive reproduction (see v. 28).
31. Behold, it was very good. The creation of man and his installation as ruler on the earth brought the creation of all earthly things to a close. According to the record God had frequently reviewed His work and pronounced it good (vs. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The survey undertaken at the end of the sixth day embraced all works completed during the previous days, “and, behold, it was very good.” Everything was perfect in its kind; every creature met the goal appointed by the Creator, and was equipped to accomplish the purpose for which it was created. The application of the term “good” to everything God had made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis “very” at the close of creation, with man as its crown and glory, indicate that nothing imperfect had come forth from God’s hand. This expression of admiration entirely excludes the possibility that any imperfection in the creation was responsible for the weakness demonstrated by Adam and Eve during the hour of temptation.
1. Were finished. The first three verses of the second chapter, and half of v. 4, are actually an unbroken continuation of the creation narrative of the first chapter. Verse 1, in solemn retrospect, links the work of the preceding six days with the Sabbath rest that followed. When God “ended his work” He left no unfinished business (see Heb. 4:3). The word “host,” ṣaba’, here denotes all created things.
2. On the seventh day. Various attempts have been made to solve the seeming difficulty between v. 1 and v. 2, the one stating that God’s work was finished on the sixth day, and the other on the seventh day. The LXX, Samaritan, and Syriac versions have chosen the easiest way to solve the problem, by substituting for the word “seventh” of the Hebrew text, where it is first used, the word “sixth.” Some commentators agree with this change, thinking that the word “seventh” of the Hebrew text is a copyist’s error. In doing so, however, they transgress one of their own basic rules of textual criticism, that the more difficult of two possible readings is usually the original one. “Ended,” yekal. Some scholars, beginning with Calvin, have translated yekal as “had finished,” which is grammatically possible. Another interpretation considers the creation work finished only after the institution of the Sabbath day. The completion consisted negatively in the cessation of the work of creation, and positively in the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day. The cessation itself formed part of the completion of the work.
He rested. The verb “rested,” shabath, means literally “to cease” from labor or activity (see Gen. 8:22; Job 32:1; etc.). As a human artificer completes his work when he has brought it up to his ideal, and thus ceases to work upon it, so in an infinitely higher sense God completed the creation of the world by ceasing to produce anything new, and then “rested.” God did not rest because He needed it (see Isa. 40:28). Therefore God’s rest was the result of neither exhaustion nor fatigue, but a cessation from previous occupation.
Because the expected phrase “evening was, morning was, the seventh day,” does not appear in the Sacred Book, some Bible expositors have claimed that the period of resting did not continue for only 24 hours, like each of the preceding six days, but began at the close of the sixth creation day and is still going on. But this verse refutes such a view. This is not the only text of Scripture that impresses the unbiased reader with the fact that the resting of God took place only during the seventh day, for the Decalogue itself states plainly that God, having worked six days, rested on the seventh day of creation week (Ex. 20:11).
The six creation days, according to the words of the text, were earthly days of ordinary duration. In the absence of any clear light to the contrary, we must understand the seventh in the same way; and that all the more, because in every passage in which it is mentioned as the foundation of the earthly Sabbath, it is regarded as an ordinary day (Ex. 20:11; 31:17).
3. God blessed the seventh day. An explanation of the meaning and importance of this day of rest is added. Here the Sacred Record closely relates the weekly Sabbath to God’s work of creation and His resting on the seventh day, just as the fourth commandment does. The blessing on the seventh day implied that it was thereby declared to be a special object of divine favor and a day that would bring blessing to His creatures.
And sanctified it. The act of sanctification consisted in a declaration that the day was holy, or set apart for holy purposes. As afterward Mt. Sinai was sanctified (Ex. 19:23), or, for the time being, invested with sacredness as the residence of God, and Aaron and his sons were sanctified, or consecrated, to the priestly office (Ex. 29:44), and the year of jubilee was sanctified, or devoted, to the purpose of religion (Lev. 25:10), so here the seventh day was sanctified, and as such proclaimed to be a holy day. This act of blessing the seventh day and declaring it holy was done in the interest of the human race, for whose benefit the Sabbath day was instituted. The weekly seventh-day Sabbath has frequently been considered an institution of the Jewish dispensation, but the Inspired Record declares that it was instituted more than two millenniums before the first Israelite (a descendant of Jacob-Israel) was born. We have, furthermore, the word of Jesus declaring, “The sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27), which indicates clearly that this institution was not ordained for the Jews only but for all mankind as well.
Because that in it he had rested. God could have had no higher reason for enjoining upon man rest on the seventh day than that by so resting man might enjoy the opportunity of reflecting upon the love and goodness of his Creator, and so become like Him. As God worked through six days and rested on the seventh, so man should toil through six days and rest on the seventh. This weekly Sabbath is a divine institution given to man by God, the Creator, and its observance is required by God, the Lawgiver. For man, therefore, to withhold any part or all of this holy time is to be guilty of disobedience against God and robbery of God as the original proprietor of man’s powers and of his time. As an institution of God’s appointing, the Sabbath deserves our honor and esteem. Neglect to render this, God counts a sin.
The Sabbath calls for abstention from common bodily labor and for the devotion of mind and heart to holy things. The Israelites were admonished to use it for holy convocations (Lev. 23:3). The Gospels attest that it was so used by Christ and the apostles (Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2; 18:4; etc.), and that it should continue to be observed by Christians after the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 24:20).
The fact that the Sabbath will still be celebrated in the new earth as a day of worship (Isa. 66:23) is a clear indication that God never intended to have its observance transferred to another day. The weekly Sabbath day is the memorial of creation, reminding man each week of God’s creative power and of how much he owes to a merciful Creator and Provider. A rejection of the Sabbath is a rejection of the Creator, and opens wide the door for all manner of false theories. “It is a constant witness to His existence and a reminder of His greatness, His wisdom, and His love. Had the Sabbath always been sacredly observed, there could never have been an atheist or an idolater” (PP 336).
4. These are the generations. The word “generations,” toledoth, is usually used in reference to a man’s family history, that is, to the birth of his sons (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; etc.). Here occurs the only instance where this word is used of other than human relationships, that is, of “the heavens and of the earth,” a phrase that is reminiscent of chs. 1:1 and 2:1. One commentator suggests that “generations” refers properly to “the history or account of their production.” The Jewish Encyclopedia says with reference to this word: “The process of creation of heavens and earth is viewed in ch. 2:4 as a genealogical history” (art. “Generation”). “Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of His work” (PP 112).
When they were created. Thus closes the creation narrative that began with Gen. 1:1, These words have been interpreted in various ways. They are a translation from behibare’am, which should not be translated “after they were created,” as has sometimes been done. Meaning literally, “in their creation,” the whole clause, “these are the generations,” etc., is best rendered, “This is the history of the origin of the heavens and the earth as they were created.”
In the day. These words introduce the account of Gen. 2. Many commentators are inclined to consider chs. 2:4 to 3:24 as a second and different creation record originating from another pen at a later time than that of chs. 1:1 to 2:4. Regarding this untenable theory see the Introduction to Genesis. A study of the contents makes it clear that ch. 2 can in no sense be considered another version of the creation narrative of the preceding chapter. Its purpose is to place Adam and Eve at home in the Garden of Eden, and this it does by providing additional information, most of which does not properly belong with the creation story as such. It is descriptive of the Eden home after it had been created. Without this information, not only would our account of this earth in its Edenic state be sadly incomplete, but the events of Gen. 3—the Fall of man—would hardly be intelligible. This chapter (Gen. 2) includes further details on the creation of man, a description of his Eden home, the test of his allegiance to God, or moral right to his home, the test of his intelligence, or mental qualifications for ruling over the created works of God, and circumstances surrounding the establishment of the first home.
5. Every plant. Verses 4-6 anticipate the creation of man in v. 7 by describing briefly the appearance of the surface of the earth, particularly with respect to vegetation, just prior to the time when he was brought into being upon the sixth day of creation week. Here was Paradise, perfect except for the presence of someone “to till the ground.” All nature, vibrant as it were with expectancy, awaits the appearance of its king, just as the members of a symphony orchestra, instruments all in tune, await the coming of their conductor.
6. A mist. The Hebrew word translated “mist,” ’ed, is of somewhat doubtful meaning, because outside of this text it occurs only in Job 36:27. Scholars have compared it with the Assyrian edû, “flood,” and applied this meaning to the two Biblical passages where it occurs. But the word “flood” does not fit the context of either of these texts, whereas the word “mist” or “vapor” makes good sense in both instances. Ancient translations usually rendered the word “spring,” which rendering reveals that they did not understand it. The improbability that one spring could have watered the earth plainly shows that “spring” cannot be the right translation of ’ed. “Mist” seems to be the best translation, and in this instance we may think of “mist” as synonymous with “dew” (PP 96).
The fact that the people of Noah’s time scoffed at the idea that rain from heaven could bring destruction to this earth in the Deluge, and that Noah is praised for believing “things not seen as yet” (Heb. 11:7), indicates that rain was unknown to the antediluvians (see PP 96, 97). Only Noah’s eye of faith could picture water falling from heaven and drowning all living beings who would not seek refuge in the ark he built. The fact that the rainbow was instituted after the Flood (Gen. 9:13-16), and seems not to have existed earlier, lends additional weight to the observation that rain had been unknown prior to that event.
7. God formed man. Additional important details about Adam’s creation are given. We are allowed to peer, as it were, into the workshop of God and to watch His hand performing the mysterious act of creation. The word “to form,” yaṣar, implies an act of molding and fashioning into a form corresponding in design and appearance to the divine plan. The word is used in describing the activity of the potter (Isa. 29:16; 49:5; etc.), of the goldsmith fashioning idols (Isa. 44:9; Hab. 2:18), and of God, who fashions various things, among others, the light (Isa. 45:7), the human eye (Ps. 94:9), the heart (Ps. 33:15), and the seasons (Ps. 74:17).
Of the dust of the ground. That man is composed of materials derived from the ground, the elements of the earth, is confirmed by science. Decomposition of the human body after death bears witness to the same fact. The major elements making up the human body are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Many others exist in smaller proportions. How true that man was made of “the dust of the ground,” and also that he shall “return to the earth” whence he was taken (Eccl. 12:7).
The breath of life. “Breath,” neshamah. From the Source of all life the life-giving principle entered the lifeless body of Adam. The agency by which the spark of life was transferred to his body is said to be the “breath” of God. The same thought appears in Job 33:4, “The breath [neshamah] of the almighty hath given me life.” Imparted to man, the “breath” is equivalent to his life; it is life itself (Isa. 2:22). At death there is “no breath [neshamah, life] left in him” (1 Kings 17:17). This “breath of life” in man differs in no way from the “breath of life” in animals, for all receive their life from God (Gen. 7:21, 22; Eccl. 3:19). It cannot therefore be the mind or intelligence.
A living soul. When the lifeless form of man was infused with this divine “breath,” neshamah, of life, man became a living “soul,” nephesh. The word nephesh has a variety of meanings: (1) breath (Job 41:21), (2) life (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Sam. 18:13; etc.), (3) heart as the seat of affections (Gen. 34:3; S. of Sol. 1:7; etc.), (4) living being (Gen. 12:5; 36:6; Lev. 4:2; etc.), and (5) for emphasizing the personal pronouns (Ps. 3:2; 1 Sam. 18:1; etc.). Note that the nephesh is made by God (Jer. 38:16), and can die (Judges 16:30), be killed (Num. 31:19), be eaten (metaphorically, Eze. 22:25), be redeemed (Ps. 34:22), and be refreshed (Ps. 19:7, Heb.). None of this applies to the spirit, ruach, indicating clearly the great difference between the two terms. It is obvious from the above survey that the translation “soul” given by the KJV to the nephesh of ch. 2:7 is not appropriate, if the commonly used expression “immortal soul” be implied. Although popular, this concept is completely foreign to the Bible. This passage may rightly be translated: “Man became a living being” (RSV). When “soul” is considered synonymous with “being,” we gain the Scriptural meaning of nephesh in this text.
8. God planted a garden. The location of Eden is unknown. The Flood so altered the original physical features of the earth as to make present identification of former localities impossible. We commonly refer to this garden as “Paradise,” a word of Persian origin meaning “park.” The Hebrew word for paradise, pardes, occurs a few times in the OT (Neh. 2:8; Eccl. 2:5; S. of Sol. 4:13), but in reference to trees rather than as a name for the Garden in Eden. The word “paradise,” Greek paradeisos, was originally applied to the home of our first parents by the translators of the LXX.
9. Every tree. In the preparation of man’s wonderful abode attention was given to ornamentation as well as to utility. Every species of vegetation that could minister to his needs and his pleasure was provided. Flowers, trees, and shrubs regaled his senses with their fragrance, delighted his eye with their exquisite form and enchanting color, and pleased his palate with their luscious fruit. For all time, Eden became man’s highest concept of earthly excellence.
The tree of life also. The sequence in which these words appear, as if they were an afterthought, seems strange to us in a modern language. This has led some critical scholars to claim that the last half of v. 9 is either a later addition or a corruption of the original. But this arrangement, which seems unusual when translated into English, is common in Hebrew. It provides no excuse whatever for doubting the purity of the text as we have it. For example, ch. 12:17 reads literally, “The Lord plagued Pharaoh with great plagues, and his house.” Other examples of the same sentence structure, though not so recognizable in the English version, may be found in Gen. 28:14; Num. 13:23; Deut. 7:14.
In eating of the tree of life Adam and Eve were to have the opportunity of expressing their faith in God as the sustainer of life, just as by keeping the Sabbath they demonstrated faith in and allegiance to their Creator. To this end God had endowed the tree with supernatural virtue. Its fruit being an antidote for death and its leaves for the sustaining of life and immortality, men would continue to live just so long as they should eat of it (8T 288; PP 60).
One of the trees was called the tree of “life,” literally, “the life,” hachayyim. The fact that this word is plural in form is explained by recognizing it as a plural of abstraction, the definite article indicating that this tree had something to do with “the” life as such, that is, that life would be obtained or preserved through the use of its fruit. However, the other trees of the garden being “good for food” were also destined to sustain life. If one tree is distinguished from the others by the extraordinary name “tree of life,” its fruit must have had the purpose of sustaining life in a way differing from and exceeding in value that of the other trees. The statement that the eating of the fruit of this tree would enable man to “live for ever” (ch. 3:22) shows that the value of this tree was entirely different from that of the many other useful trees of the garden.
The name of the second tree can more accurately be translated “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” “The” before the word “knowledge” signifies that the tree could not provide any and every kind of knowledge, but only a certain sad knowledge of “evil” in contrast with “good.”
The names of these trees are important. In both cases the word “tree” is connected with abstract terms, life and knowledge. This provides no reason for declaring that these two trees did not exist, but attributes to them, rather, spiritual implications. Although the “ark of the covenant” was a real piece of temple furniture, it too received a name that had religious import. The blood of atonement spilled by the Saviour on our behalf was also a very real substance. The two trees must likewise be considered as actual trees that had significant purposes to fulfill, these physical and moral purposes being indicated by their names.
10. A river. Much scholarly effort has been put forth in an endeavor to clarify vs. 10-14, but a satisfactory explanation will probably never be found, because the surface of the earth after the Flood bore little resemblance to what it had been before. A catastrophe of such magnitude as to elevate lofty mountain ranges and to form the vast areas of ocean could hardly have left such lesser surface features as rivers untouched. We therefore cannot hope to identify antediluvian geographical terms with present-day surface features of the earth, except as Inspiration may do so for us (see PP 105-108).
11. Pison. The name of the first river, Pison, is unknown from any non-Biblical sources, and even in the Bible itself this river is nowhere else mentioned. The opinions of scholars identifying this river with the Indus or Ganges in India, the Nile in Egypt, or rivers in Anatolia are of no value.
Havilah, where there is gold. In other texts where the same proper name appears, it refers to postdiluvian times. These texts are thus of no help in locating the “Havilah” of ch. 2:11.
12. There is bdellium. According to Pliny, bdellium was the transparent and odoriferous resin of a tree native to Arabia, India, Persia, and Babylonia. Whether this was the same as the bdellium of antediluvian days, we do not know.
The onyx stone. This must be one of the precious or semiprecious stones, probably of a red color. The ancient versions vary in their translations between the onyx, sardonyx, sardius, and beryl; hence, it is not certain that the translation “onyx” is correct.
15. To dress and to keep it. God, having prepared an abode for man, whom He had created, placed him in this garden home with the definite commission “to dress and to keep it.” This command teaches us that the perfection in which all creation came forth from God’s hands did not exclude the need of cultivation, that is, of human labor. Man had to use his physical and mental faculties to preserve the garden in the same perfect state in which he had received it. The fact that physical labor will be a delightful feature of life in the new earth (Isa. 65:21-23) indicates that work was not intended to be a curse.
The commission given to Adam “to keep” the garden may perhaps be a veiled hint that dangers threatened to wrest it from him should he not be watchful. The verb “to keep,” shamar, means “to guard,” “to watch,” “to preserve,” “to observe,” and “to hold fast.” It is certainly unreasonable to think that Adam was asked to guard the garden against attacks of wild beasts, as some commentators have interpreted this text. No enmity existed on earth before the Fall, either among the animals themselves or between man and beast. Fear and enmity are the results of sin. But another and very real danger threatened to snatch from man his rulership over the earth and his possession of the garden. On the other hand, “to keep” the garden may simply be synonymous with “to dress” it.
We have the assurance that God does nothing affecting man without first informing him with regard to His intentions (Amos 3:7). If God, who does only that which is beneficial for man, deems it necessary to inform us of His purposes, it is certain that He must have kept Adam informed of the danger threatening this earth (PP 36, 52, 53).
16. Of every tree of the garden. The commandment related in these verses presupposes that man understood the language God spoke and the distinction between “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.” The command begins positively, granting permission to eat freely from all the trees of the garden—with the exception of one. The right to free enjoyment of all the other trees is made emphatic by the intensive idiom “eating thou shalt eat,” ’akol to’kel; to a divine prohibition there is even a positive aspect.
17. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of this freedom. Man was not to eat from the one tree bearing the name “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (see on v. 9). It is futile to speculate what kind of fruit it may have borne, inasmuch as this has not been revealed. The very presence of this tree in the garden revealed that man was a free moral agent. Man’s service was not forced; he might either obey or disobey. The decision was his.
The fruit itself was harmless (Ed 25). But God’s explicit commandment to refrain from eating it set this tree apart as the testing ground of man’s loyalty and obedience. As a moral being, man had God’s law written upon his conscience. But, as if to clarify the principles of that law by applying it to a specific situation, and thus to make a fair test of man’s allegiance to his Maker, an injunction was laid upon him. God was the real owner of all things, even of those that Adam held in trust, and this gave Him the right to reserve any part of the creation for Himself. It would not have been unreasonable for Him to reserve a great share of this earth for Himself and to allow Adam the use of only a small portion of it. But no, man could use freely of everything that was in the garden—except one tree. No other purpose, evidently, was to be served by refraining from eating the fruit of this tree than to give clear proof of allegiance to God.
In the day that thou eatest thereof. The prohibition was accompanied by a severe penalty for transgression, namely, death. Some have thought that the wording of the penalty required its execution upon the very day when the command was violated. They see a serious discrepancy between the announcement and its fulfillment. However, the divine pronouncement, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” literally, “dying thou shalt die,” means that upon the day of transgression sentence would be pronounced. Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality. Just as prior to his fall Adam could be certain of immortality, vouchsafed to him by the tree of life, so now, subsequent to that catastrophe, his mortality was just as certain. This, more than immediacy of physical death, is what the language implies. God required of man that he make a choice of principles. He was to accept the will of God and subject himself to it, confident that he would fare well as a result, or he would by his own choice sever connection with God and become, presumably, independent of Him. But separation from the Source of life could inevitably bring only death. The same principles are still valid. Punishment and death are the certain results of man’s free choice to indulge in rebellion against God.
18. An help meet for him. Appropriate, that is, to his needs; to complement him. Animals had been created in swarms or in groups, but man as a solitary individual. However, it was not God’s purpose for him to be alone for long. Loneliness would be detrimental to man’s well-being, and God would therefore make a companion for him.
19. Every beast of the field. The thought expressed by some Bible expositors, that God made several unsuccessful attempts to provide man with a companion by creating various animals, is a misapprehension of the purpose of this part of the narrative. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that Moses records. The Hebrew verb form rendered “formed” in the KJV may correctly be translated “had formed,” thus referring back to the creative acts of the fifth and early sixth days. The first part of the verse, then, is given by way of providing a preface to that which immediately follows.
Brought them unto Adam. Adam was to study these animals and to engage in the important exercise of giving appropriate names to them, for which task he would require an understanding of them and their habits. This would qualify him or, perhaps, prove him qualified to rule over them. At the same time he would become aware of the family life they enjoyed and so of his own lack of companionship. Recognizing also that God had created him infinitely higher than the animals, he would realize that he could not choose a companion from them. If the formation of woman was to meet fully the purpose of the Creator, Adam must come to sense his own incompleteness and to feel his need of companionship—that “it was not good,” in other words, that he should remain alone.
20. Adam gave names to all cattle. It is evident that man was created with the faculty of speech. This ability Adam now employed to express the observations made in his study of the animals. He was introduced thus to the natural sciences, and by naming the animals began his dominion over them. Cattle may be mentioned first because they were to stand nearer to man in their future relations than other animals. The birds, which man loves so much and of which some species were to become most helpful to him, are given second place in the enumeration. It is impossible to discover what these names were, inasmuch as it is not known what language Adam and the antediluvian world spoke.
Not found an help meet. Adam’s study of the animal creation supplied him with considerable knowledge, but did not satisfy his longing for companionship with another being, his equal. This fact indicates the equal partnership that the woman should enjoy with the man. No real companion could be found for Adam among creatures inferior to him.
21. A deep sleep. God, planning to create Adam’s companion from his body, caused him to fall into a deep sleep that may be compared to unconsciousness under anesthetic. And surgery indeed it was that God performed on Adam during his sleep, taking out one of his ribs and filling its place with flesh. The Hebrew word ṣela‘, meaning elsewhere in the Bible “side,” “door leaf,” “wing” (of a building), and “panel” (of a wall covering), has here the meaning “rib.” This traditional translation, taken over in modern Bibles from the LXX and the Vulgate, has more recently been proved correct from cuneiform records. In the Assyrian language, which was closely related to Hebrew, the word for rib was sêlu.
22. Made he a woman. Moses had a ready command of the Hebrew language and knew how to use it to impress his readers. To describe the creative activity of God, he employed in the narrative in ch. 1 the verbs “to create” (ch. 1:27), “to make” (ch. 1:26), and “to form” (ch. 2:7). Now he adds to these more or less synonymous terms the verb “to build.” Each of these has its own distinct shade of meaning. Adam’s rib formed the basic material from which his companion was “built.” The woman was formed for inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. She was “to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him” (PP 46). Marriage is a type of the fellowship of love and life that exists between the Lord and His church (Eph. 5:32).
Brought her unto the man. God Himself solemnized the first marriage. After making the woman He led her to Adam, who by that time must have awakened from his deep sleep. As Adam was the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), so Eve could properly be called the daughter of God; and as her Father, God led her to Adam and presented her to him. The marriage covenant, therefore, is appropriately called the covenant of God (Prov. 2:17), a name implying His authorship of that sacred institution.
23. This is now bone of my bones. Adam, recognizing in her the desired companion, welcomed her joyfully as his bride and expressed his joy in a poetic exclamation. The words, “this is now,” reflect his pleasant surprise as he saw in the woman the fulfillment of his heart’s desire. His thrice-repeated “this” (as in the Hebrew) vividly points to her upon whom, in joyful astonishment, his eye now rested with the intense thrill of first love. Instinctively, or as the result of divine instruction, he recognized in her part of his own being. He was henceforth to love her as his own body, for in loving her he loves himself. The apostle Paul stresses this truth (Eph. 5:28).
She shall be called Woman. The name Adam gave his newly created companion reflected the manner of her creation. The Hebrew word ’ishshah, “woman,” is formed of the word ’ish, “man,” with the feminine ending. The English word “woman” (Anglo-Saxon, wife-man) is similarly related to the word “man.” The same is true in various other languages.
24. Leave his father and his mother. The words of this verse cannot be regarded as a prophetic utterance of Adam, but rather as the words of God Himself. They are part of the declaration made by God at the marriage ceremony (see Matt. 19:4, 5; MB 99). These words express the deepest physical and spiritual unity of man and woman, and hold up monogamy before the world as the form of marriage ordained by God. These words do not recommend a forsaking of filial duty and respect toward father and mother, but refer primarily to the fact that a man’s wife is to be first in his affections and that his first duty is toward her. His love for her is to exceed, though certainly not to supersede, a very proper love for his parents.
They shall be one flesh. The unity of husband and wife is expressed in unmistakable words, existing as they do in a unity of bodies, a community of interests, and a reciprocity of affections. It is a significant fact that Christ uses this very passage in His strong condemnation of divorce (Matt. 19:5).
25. They were both naked. Adam and Eve had no need of material clothing, for about them the Creator had placed a robe of light, a robe symbolic of His own righteous character, which was reflected perfectly in them. When the moral image of their Maker is again reflected in His earthly sons and daughters, He will return to claim them as His own (see Rev. 7:9; 19:8; COL 69, 310). This white robe of innocence is the garment with which the saved of earth will be clad as they enter the gates of Paradise.
1. The serpent. With the serpent a new figure appears in the narrative, one that exercised a tremendous influence on the subsequent history of the world. Moses turns from his description of the perfect conditions in Paradise to the history of the Fall, by which this earth was transformed from a world of happiness, love, and perfection to one of sorrow, hatred, and wickedness. Moses leaves unmentioned the blissful period in Eden, time spent in complete happiness, in the study of natural history, in tending the garden as God had ordained, and in daily communion with the Creator in the cool hours of eventime (Gen. 3:8).
More subtil than any beast. The serpent is introduced as a creature more subtle than other animals. The word “subtil,” ‘arum, is used in the Bible a few times to indicate an unfavorable tendency of character (Job 5:12; 15:5), with the connotation of being “clever” or “cunning,” but usually in the favorable sense of being prudent (see Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). The latter, favorable meaning would seem preferable here because the serpent was one of the created beings God had pronounced “good,” even “very good” (Gen. 1:25, 31). The evil character of serpents today is a result of the Fall and subsequent curse, and not a trait of that animal when it was created.
The objection that the serpent was not a real animal, but a supernatural being, hardly needs any serious refutation in view of the explicit statement that it was, indeed, an animal. However, the whole Scripture makes it abundantly plain that the serpent itself was not responsible for man’s fall, but rather Satan (see John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rom. 16:20). Nevertheless, Satan is in a figurative sense occasionally called a serpent because he used the serpent as a medium in his attempt to deceive man (see Rev. 12:9; 20:2).
The fall of Lucifer, who had been foremost among the angels of heaven (Isa. 14:12, 13; Eze. 28:13-15), obviously preceded the Fall of man (see PP 36). God, who daily conversed with man in the garden, had not left him ignorant of events in heaven, but had acquainted him with the apostasy of Satan and other angels, for whose coming Adam was to be on guard. Adam and Eve may have expected to see Satan appear as an angel, and felt prepared to meet him as such and to reject his enticements. But, instead, he spoke to her through the serpent, and took her by surprise. This, however, in no wise excuses our first mother, though it is true that she was thereby deceived (see 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3).
The trial of our first parents was permitted as a test of their loyalty and love. This test was essential to their spiritual development, to the formation of character. Eternal happiness would have been the result for them if they had come out of the test unscathed. Inasmuch as God did not wish them to be tempted above their ability to withstand (1 Cor. 10:13), He did not allow Satan to approach them in the likeness of God, or at any other place than this one tree (1 SP 34). Satan, therefore, came in the form of a creature, not only far inferior to God, but far below man himself. Adam and Eve, in allowing Satan, through the medium of a mere animal, to persuade them to break the commandment of God, were doubly without excuse.
He said unto the woman. Using the serpent as his medium, Satan found a time when he could address the woman alone. It is always easier to persuade an individual to do wrong when he is detached from protective surroundings. Had Eve remained with her husband, his presence would have been a protection to her, and the story would doubtless have had a different ending.
Yea, hath God said. Satan addressed her with a question that looked innocent but was full of cunning. It has been debated whether the question should be translated (1) “Has God really said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” meaning, “Are there any trees in the garden of which you may not eat?” or (2) “Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden.” The Hebrew allows both translations, and possesses therefore a certain ambiguity. Satan intended that his words should be indefinite and ambiguous. His purpose was obvious. He wished to sow doubt in the heart of the woman concerning the real phraseology and the exact meaning of the divine commandment, especially concerning the reasonableness and justice of such a command.
2. We may eat of the fruit. Eve evidently understood the question in the second sense discussed above, and instead of turning away and fleeing to her husband, showed signs of wavering and doubt, and a readiness to discuss the subject further with the serpent.
God declared, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Eve changed this to, “lest ye die.” For the full certainty of the death penalty following a transgression of the command, the woman declared that death might follow such an act. The word “lest,” pen, implies inner alarm at the thought of playing with something that might prove fatal, concealed under an assumed cynical attitude toward the idea that such a thing could ever really happen. The doubt and hesitancy in Eve’s language, reflecting that of the serpent, make the motive to obedience predominantly one of the fear of death rather than of inherent love toward her beneficent Creator. Another symptom of awakening doubt in the absolute justice of God’s injunction is the fact that Eve did not mention the name of the tree, which was certainly known to her. By speaking of this tree in general terms of locality as the one being “in the midst of the garden,” she placed it almost in the same class with the other trees of her garden home.
4. Ye shall not surely die. If Satan’s first question was intended to arouse doubt, as indeed it was, the statement with which he followed it up had the deceptive appearance of an authoritative declaration. But therein truth was most cleverly mixed with falsehood. This assertion contradicted God’s explicit command in the most emphatic manner of which Hebrew is capable, and which may be rendered, “Ye will positively not die.” Satan challenged the truthfulness of God’s word by an unconcealed lie, for which reason Christ was right in calling him the father of lies (John 8:44).
5. Your eyes shall be opened. Satan proceeded to give a plausible reason for God’s prohibition. He charged God with: (1) Envy of His creatures’ happiness. Satan said in effect, “Depend upon it, it is not through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been prohibited, but through fear of your becoming rivals of your Master Himself.” (2) Falsehood. Satan charged that God lied when He said death would follow the eating of the fruit. God’s requirements were placed in the most heinous and reprehensible light. By mixing truth with falsehood Satan tried to confuse the mind of Eve, in order to make it difficult for her to distinguish between God’s words and his. The expression “in the day ye eat thereof” sounded similar to what God had spoken (ch. 2:17), as did also the phrase “knowing good and evil.” The promise, “Your eyes shall be opened,” implied a present limitation of sight that could be removed by following the serpent’s advice.
Ye shall be as gods. The same word translated in the KJV “gods,” ’elohim, is rendered “God” in vs. 1, 3, and 5. The translators of the KJV here followed the LXX and the Vulgate. The correct rendering is, “Ye shall be as God.” This reveals most sharply the blasphemous nature of Satan’s words (see Isa. 14:12-14) and the full gravity of his deception.
6. When the woman saw. After doubt and unbelief in God’s word had been awakened in the woman, the tree seemed vastly different to her. Three times mention is made of how charming it was; it appealed to her taste, to her eye, and to her longing for increased wisdom. Looking at the tree in this way, with a desire to partake of its fruit, was a concession to Satan’s inducements. She was already guilty in her mind of transgressing the divine command, “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex. 20:17). The act of taking the fruit and eating it was but the natural result of entering thus upon the path of transgression.
She took of the fruit. Having coveted that to which she had no right, the woman proceeded to transgress one commandment after another. She next stole God’s property, violating the eighth commandment (Ex. 20:15). By eating the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband she also transgressed the sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13). She then broke the first commandment (Ex. 20:3), because she placed Satan before God in her esteem, and obeyed him rather than her Creator.
Gave also unto her husband. Observing that she did not die immediately, a fact which seemed to confirm the seducer’s definite assertion, “Ye shall not die,” Eve experienced a deceptive sense of elation. She wanted her husband to share the feeling with her. This is the first time the Sacred Record calls Adam “her husband.” But instead of being a “help meet” for him she became the agent of his destruction. The statement that “she gave also to her husband with her,” does not imply that he had been with her all the time, standing mute at the scene of temptation. Instead, she gave him of the fruit upon rejoining him that he might eat it “with her” and thus share its presumed benefits.
He did eat. Before he ate, a conversation between Adam and his wife must have taken place. Should he follow his wife in her path of sin and disobedience or give her up, trusting that God would somehow restore his shattered happiness? The fact that she had not died as the result of eating the fruit, and that no apparent harm had come her to her, did not deceive Adam. “Adam was not deceived, but the woman” (1 Tim. 2:14). But his wife’s power of persuasion, coupled with his own love for her, induced him to share the consequences of her fall, whatever they might be. Fateful decision! Instead of waiting until he should have the opportunity of discussing the whole tragic matter with God, he took his fate into his own hands. Adam’s fall is the more tragic because he did not doubt God, nor was he deceived like Eve; he acted in the certain expectation that God’s terrible threat would come true.
Deplorable as was Eve’s transgression and fraught as it was with potential woe for the human family, her choice did not necessarily involve the race in the penalty for her transgression. It was the deliberate choice of Adam, in the full understanding of an express command of God—rather than hers—that made sin and death the inevitable lot of mankind. Eve was deceived; Adam was not (see Rom. 5:12, 14; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). Had Adam remained loyal to God in spite of Eve’s disloyalty, divine wisdom would yet have solved the dilemma for him and averted disaster for the race (PP 56).
7. The eyes of them both were opened. What irony lies in these words, which record the fulfillment of Satan’s ambiguous promise! The eyes of their intellect were open—they realized that they were no longer innocent. Their physical eyes were open—they saw that they were naked.
And made themselves aprons. Standing ashamed in each other’s presence, they sought to evade the disgrace of their nakedness. Their fig-leaf aprons were a pitiful substitute for the radiant garments of innocence they had forfeited. Conscience was at work. That this feeling of shame had its root not in sensuality but in the consciousness of guilt before God is evident from the fact that they hid themselves from Him.
The only ancient inscription that shows some resemblance to the story of the Fall of man as told in the Bible is a Sumero-Akkadian bilingual poem which says, “The maiden ate that which was forbidden, the maiden, the mother of sin, committed evil, the mother of sin had a painful experience” (A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients [Leipzig, 1930], p. 99).
8. The voice of the Lord. The periodical visits of God toward the close of day, when quiet evening zephyrs refreshed the garden, had always been occasions of delight for the happy pair. But the sound of God’s approach was now a source of alarm. Both felt that they dared by no means meet their Creator. The reason for their fear was neither humility nor modesty but a profound sense of guilt.
9. Where art thou? Adam, who had always welcomed the divine approach, was now in hiding. He could not, however, be hidden from God, who called to Adam, not as if ignorant of his hiding place, but to bring him to confession. Adam sought to hide the sin behind its consequences, his disobedience behind his sense of shame, by proposing to God that he had hidden himself through embarrassment at his nakedness. His consciousness of the effects of sin was keener than of the sin itself. Here we witness for the first time the confusion between sin and punishment, which is characteristic of man in his fallen state. The results of sin are sensed and detested more than the sin itself.
12. The woman whom thou gavest. God put forth a question that revealed His knowledge of Adam’s transgression and was designed to awaken within him a conviction of sin. Adam’s reply was a devious and evasive apology for his embarrassment that amounted to an accusation of God. Thus had Adam’s character changed in the short interval since he entered the pathway of disobedience. The man who had cherished his wife so dearly that he intentionally violated God’s command in order that he might not be separated from her, now speaks of her with cold and callous antipathy as “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me.” His words resemble those of Jacob’s sons who spoke to their father about Joseph as “thy son” (Gen. 37:32; cf. Luke 15:30). One of the bitter fruits of sin is a hardness of heart, “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31). Adam’s insinuation that God was to blame for his sad plight in being bound to such a weak and seductive creature sinks to the very depths of ingratitude.
13. The serpent beguiled me. The woman also had an answer ready, blaming the serpent for deceiving her. Neither Adam nor his wife denied the facts, but each sought to escape blame by incriminating someone else. Neither gave evidence of contrition. One noteworthy difference, however, exists between their confessions. The woman protested that she had been deceived; Adam tacitly admitted his act had been deliberate, in full knowledge of its consequences.
14. Thou art cursed. The curse of sin rests not alone on the serpent but on all the animal creation, though it was to bear a greater curse than its fellows. Formerly the most clever and beautiful of creatures, the serpent was now deprived of wings and doomed henceforth to crawl in the dust.
It should not be supposed that unreasoning brutes were thus made objects of the anger of a vengeful God. This curse was for Adam’s benefit, as one means of impressing him with the far-reaching consequences of sin. It must have brought intense suffering to his own heart as he beheld these creatures, whose protector he was supposed to be, bearing the results of his sin (PP 68). Upon the serpent, which had become for all time the symbol of evil, the curse fell more heavily—not so much that it might suffer as that it might also be for a man a symbol of the results of sin. Little wonder that most human beings feel revulsion and dread in the presence of a serpent.
Dust shalt thou eat. The fact that serpents actually do not eat dust has caused critical commentators to declare that ancient people erred, thinking that this animal, creeping always on its belly and living even in deserts where scarcely any food is available, fed on dust. This misconception influenced the author of Genesis, they say, to formulate the curse pronounced over the serpent so as to harmonize with this commonly held belief. Conservative scholars have more or less unsuccessfully tried to show that the serpent eats some dust when it eats its food. But is the same not true of many animals that pick up their food from the ground? This problem disappears when we view the phrase “dust shalt thou eat” as figurative. It was used in this sense by ancient peoples, as their literature and letters, recently recovered, reveal. The pagan myth of Ishtar’s descent to the nether world says of cursed people that “dust is their fare and clay their food.” Among the curses pronounced on enemies the wish is repeated over and over again that they shall have to eat dust. In the old Welsh battle hymn, “March of the Men of Harlech,” the taunt is hurled at their enemies, “They shall bite the ground.” In this light the expression, “Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,” means simply, “Thou shalt be the most cursed of all creatures.”
15. I will put enmity. Here the Lord turns from addressing the literal serpent who spoke to Eve, to pronounce judgment on the old serpent the devil. This judgment, expressed in prophetic language, has ever been understood by the Christian church as a prediction of the coming of the Deliverer. Even though this interpretation is unquestionably correct, it may be pointed out that the prophecy is also true literally—there is mortal enmity between the serpent and man wherever the two meet.
Between thy seed and her seed. Reference is made to the agelong struggle between Satan’s “seed” or followers (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10) and the woman’s seed. The Lord Jesus Christ is styled by pre-eminence “the seed” (Rev. 12:1-5; cf. Gal. 3:16, 19); it was He who came “to destroy the works of the devil” (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8).
It shall bruise thy head. “Bruise,” shuph. This word means “to crush” or “to lie in wait for.” It is evident that crushing the head is far more serious than crushing the heel. It is important to notice that although the enmity foretold is to be between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent, it is the head of the serpent and not its seed that is to be crushed. In retaliation, the serpent will have been able to do no more than to bruise the heel of the woman’s seed.
The “seed” is put in the singular, indicating, not that a multitude of descendants of the woman jointly shall be engaged in crushing the serpent’s head, but rather that a single individual will accomplish this. These observations clearly show that in this pronouncement is compressed the record of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, a battle that began in heaven (Rev. 12:7-9), was continued on earth, where Christ again defeated him (Heb. 2:14), and will terminate finally with Satan’s destruction at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:10). Christ did not emerge from this battle unscathed. The nail marks in His hands and feet and the scar in His side will be eternal reminders of the fierce strife in which the serpent bruised the woman’s seed (John 20:25; Zech. 13:6; EW 53).
This pronouncement must have brought great comfort to the two dismayed offenders standing before God, from whose precepts they had departed. Adam, viceroy of God on earth so long as he remained loyal, had, by transferring his loyalty from God to the serpent, ceded his authority to Satan. That Satan was fully aware of his usurped “rights” over this earth, gained by Adam’s submission, is clear from his statement to Christ on the mount of temptation (Luke 4:5, 6). Adam began to realize the extent of his loss, that from ruler over this world he had become a slave of Satan. Nevertheless, before hearing his own sentence pronounced, the healing balm of hope was applied to his shattered soul. To her whom he had blamed for his fall he was now to look for deliverance—for the promised seed, in whom would be power to vanquish the archenemy of God and man.
How kind was God! Divine justice required that sin should meet its penalty, but divine mercy had already found a way to redeem the fallen human race—by the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God (1 Peter 1:20; Eph. 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8). God instituted the ritual of sacrifice by way of providing man with a visual aid, that he might be led to understand something of the price that must be paid to make atonement for his sin. The innocent lamb had to give its lifeblood for that of man, and its skin to cover the sinner’s nakedness, in order that man might thus ever be symbolically reminded of the Son of God, who would have to lay down His life to atone for man’s transgression and whose righteousness alone would be sufficient to cover him. We do not know how clear Adam’s understanding of the plan of redemption was, but we can be certain that enough was revealed to be an assurance to him that sin would not last forever, that the Redeemer would be born of the woman’s seed, that the lost rulership would be regained, and that the happiness of Eden would be restored. From first to last the gospel of salvation is the central theme of the Scriptures.
16. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow. The phrase “thy sorrow and thy conception” is generally considered to be a literary form in which two similar phrases express a single idea. The phrase could thus read “the sorrow of thy conception.” At the very first, man had been commanded, “Be fruitful and multiply” (ch. 1:28).
Repeated conception was therefore intended to be a blessing, not a curse. But the entrance of sin meant that henceforth pregnancy would be accompanied by pain.
In sorrow. Indeed, the pains of childbirth were to be so intense that in Scripture they are symbolic of the most severe anguish of body and mind (see Micah 4:9, 10; 1 Thess. 5:3; John 16:21; Rev. 12:2).
Thy desire shall be thy husband. The Hebrew word shuq, “desire,” means “to run after, to have a violent craving for a thing,” indicating the strongest possible desire for it. Though oppressed by man and tortured by the pains of childbirth, the woman would still feel an intense desire for her husband. Commentators have been divided in their opinion as to whether this is part of the punishment. It seems reasonable to conclude that this “desire” was given to alleviate the sorrows of womanhood and to bind the hearts of husband and wife ever more closely together.
He shall rule over thee. The woman had broken her divinely appointed relationship with the man. Instead of being a help “meet” for him she had become his seducer. Therefore her status of equality with man was forfeited; he was to “rule over” her as lord and master. A wife is described in Scripture as being “possessed” by her lord. Among most non-Christian peoples woman has been subjected throughout the ages to degradation and virtual slavery. Among the Hebrews, however, the condition of woman was one of distinct subordination though not of oppression or slavery. Christianity has placed woman on the same platform as man as regards the blessings of the gospel (Gal. 3:28). Although the husband is to be head of the household, Christian principles will lead a man and his wife into an experience of real partnership, where each is so devoted to the happiness and well-being of the other that it never occurs to either to attempt to “rule” over the other (see Col. 3:18, 19).
17. Because thou hast hearkened. For the first time the noun “Adam” is used as a proper name without the article, a fact that is not apparent in the KJV, where ha’adam, in chs. 2:19, 23; 3:8, 9, is translated as a personal name, although the article in each instance indicates that the word is used in the sense of “the man.” Before passing sentence God explained why it was necessary and appropriate. Adam had acted in accord with Eve’s persuasive arguments, setting her word above that of God. He had thus withdrawn his supreme affection and allegiance from God, and so had forfeited the blessings of life, and even life itself. Having exalted his will above the will of God, Adam must learn that independence from God does not mean a more exalted sphere of existence but separation from the Source of life. Death would therefore show him the worthlessness of his own nature.
Cursed is the ground. It should be noticed again that God did not curse either Adam or his wife. Curses were pronounced only upon the serpent and the ground. But “cursed is the ground for thy sake,” God said to Adam.
In sorrow shalt thou eat. The same word that had been used to express the sufferings associated with childbearing is now used to inform Adam of the difficulties to be encountered in eking out a meager living from the cursed ground. So long as he lived there would be no hope of relief from this condition. The expression “all the days of thy life” is the first indication that death would surely come, though the event might for a time be postponed.
18. Thorns also and thistles. Prior to the Fall, only plants that were either useful for food or beautiful to the eye grew from the earth; now it was to produce “thorns and thistles” also (6T 186). The increased labor necessary to the cultivation of the soil would increase the misery of man’s existence. He was to learn by bitter experience that life independent of God can at best be one of sorrow and affliction.
The herb. See on ch. 1:11, 29. The divine punishment provided also a partial change in diet. We evidently are to conclude that the quantity and quality of grains and nuts and fruits originally given to man were, as a result of the curse, reduced to such an extent that man would be required to look to the herbs for a portion of his daily food. This change may also have been due in part to the loss of certain elements from the tree of life, to a change in climate, and perhaps most of all to man’s sentence to hard labor in the process of earning a livelihood.
19. In the sweat of thy face. The arduous toil that was to add to man’s burdensome life is now vividly expressed. This refers specifically to the husbandman, who must live by forcing from a reluctant earth food for himself and his family, but it applies equally to all other vocations. Since Adam’s fall human achievement may be realized only through toil. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that this punishment was indeed a blessing in disguise for sinful beings. When a man works he is far less likely to sin than when he spends his days in idleness. Toil and labor develop character and teach man humility and cooperation with God. This is one reason why the Christian church has generally found its most loyal adherents and supporters among the laboring class. Work, even when arduous, should not be despised; “a blessing is in it.”
Till thou return unto the ground. The Lord informed Adam that the grave was his certain destination. Man thus understood that the plan of redemption (v. 15) would not prevent the loss of his present life, but it did offer assurance of a new life. With the change in Adam’s nature from conditional immortality to mortality began the fulfillment of the dire prediction, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Unless in mercy man had been granted a day of grace, death would have occurred instantaneously. Divine justice required man’s life; divine mercy afforded man an opportunity to regain it.
20. Adam called his wife’s name Eve. This verse is not a disturbing interpolation in the context of the story of the Fall and its consequences, as some commentators maintain. It shows that Adam believed the promise with regard to the woman’s seed and manifested this faith in the name that he now gave to his wife.
Eve, chawwah. Chawwah means “life,” and is here translated Zoe by the LXX. It is an old Semitic form, found also in old Phoenician inscriptions, but was no longer used in the Hebrew language at the time the Bible was written. This has been suggested as indicating that Adam spoke an old Semitic language. If Moses had used a contemporary Hebrew equivalent, he would have written the woman’s name chayyah instead of chawwah, but by giving the name in an unusual archaic form he shows that his knowledge goes back into the remote past. In ch. 4:1 chawwah was roughly transliterated Eua by the LXX, whence comes our English “Eve.”
She was the mother. Adam gave the name “the living one” to his wife in faith, seeing in her the “mother of all living” at a time when his death sentence had just been pronounced. Also, he looked beyond the grave and saw in the seed promised to his wife the One who would restore to him and his descendants the immortality they had forfeited that day. Instead of calling her in gloom and despair—as could be expected under the circumstances—“the mother of all doomed,” he fastened his eye in faith upon his Judge, and, before she even gave birth to her first-born, called her, hopefully, “the living one.” Faith was indeed to him “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
21. Coates of skins. Before expelling Adam and Eve from the garden, God provided them with more durable clothing, suitable for the hard labor that lay ahead and as protection against the extremes of heat and cold that followed the Fall (PP 61). Also the skins were a constant reminder of their lost innocence, of death as the wages of sin, and of the promised Lamb of God, who would by His own vicarious death take away the sins of the world. He who had been commissioned protector of the animal creation now unhappily found himself taking the life of one of them. They must die that he might live.
The sacrificial service, though not specifically mentioned here, was instituted at this time (PP 68; cf. DA 28). The story of Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifices related in the next chapter shows that the first sons of Adam and Eve were well acquainted with this ritual. If God had not issued definite regulations concerning sacrifices, His approval of Abel’s offering and His disapproval of Cain’s would have been arbitrary. That Cain did not accuse God of partiality is evidence that he as well as his brother knew what was required. The universality of animal sacrifices in ancient times points to a common origin of this practice.
22. As one of us. Man had learned of his punishment and the plan of redemption, and had been provided clothing. By disobedience he had learned the difference between good and evil, whereas God had intended him to gain this knowledge through voluntary cooperation with the divine will. Satan’s promise that man would become “like God” was fulfilled only in that man now knew something of the results of sin.
Put forth his hand. It was now necessary to prevent man from continuing to partake of the fruit of the tree of life lest he become an immortal sinner (PP 60). Through sin man had fallen under the power of death. Thus the fruit that produced immortality could now do him only harm. Immortality in a state of sin, and thus of endless misery, was not the life for which God designed man. Denying man access to this life-giving tree was an act of divine mercy which Adam may not have fully appreciated at that time, but for which he will be grateful in the world to come. There he will eat forevermore from the long-lost tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14). By partaking of the emblems of Christ’s sacrifice, we have the privilege of eating by faith of the fruit of that tree today, and of looking forward with confidence to the time when we may pluck and eat its fruit with all the redeemed in the Paradise of God (8T 288).
24. He drove out the man. In sending Adam forth from Eden to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, God performed what must have been to Him, as well as to Adam, a sad duty. Even with the primeval forests cleared away, there would ever be a perpetual struggle against weeds, insects, and wild beasts.
Cherubims. The origin of the name “cherubim” is not clear, but the word cherub is probably related to the Assyrian word karâbu, “to bless,” or “to pray.” The Bible represents cherubim as belonging to the class of beings we call angels, especially those close to God and His throne (Eze. 9:3; 10:4; Ps. 99:1). For this reason cherubic figures were to be upon the ark and the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:18; 26:1, 31), and were afterward engraved upon the walls and doors of the Temple (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35).
A memory of heavenly beings guarding the way to the tree of life is perhaps retained in the old Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, who went out in search of the “herb of life,” or immortality. Of the place where the “herb of life” was to be found, the epic reports that “scorpion men guard its gate, whose terror is fearful, whose beholding is death; their awesome glory throws down mountains.” Assyrian palaces were guarded by great winged colossi called kâribu, half bull and half man, perhaps a pagan corruption of the record of the God-appointed guardians of Paradise. In Egyptian temples are found numerous representations of cherubim, creatures similar to human beings, with their wings spread protectingly over the shrine of deity.
A flaming sword. Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence. As such, the Shekinah glory of God appeared between the two cherubim, one on either side of the mercy seat covering the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (see Ex. 25:22; Isa. 37:16; DA 464; PP 349; GC 24). The phrase “a flaming sword” is a rather inexact translation of the Hebrew, which reads literally “a glittering of the sword.” There was no literal sword guarding the gate of Paradise. There was, rather, what appeared to be the scintillating reflection of light from a sword “turned every way” with great rapidity—flashing shafts of light radiating from an intensely brilliant center. Furthermore, the form of the Hebrew verb mithhappeketh, rendered in the KJV “turned every way,” really means “turning itself every way.” This verb form is used exclusively to express intensive, reflexive action, and requires in this instance the conclusion that the “sword” appeared to whirl itself about. This radiant, living light was none other than the Shekinah glory, the manifestation of the divine presence. Before it, for centuries, those loyal to God gathered to worship Him (PP 62, 83, 84).
1. I have gotten a man from the Lord. The Hebrew reads literally, “I have gotten a man, the Lord.” When Eve held her first-born in her arms she apparently remembered the divine promise of ch. 3:15, and entertaining the hope that he was to be the promised Deliverer, named him Qayin, “gotten” (DA 31). Forlon hope! Her eager longing for the speedy fulfillment of the gospel promise was doomed to meet the most heartbreaking disappointment. Little did she realize that this very child would become the world’s first murderer.
2. His brother Abel. The absence of the usual expression “and she conceived,” and the use of the peculiar phraseology “she again bare,” literally, “she continued to give birth,” have suggested to some commentators that Abel was Cain’s twin brother. This may be true but is not necessarily implied by the text. Abel’s name means “vanity” or “nothingness.” It reflects the fact that either a mother’s hopes had already met with disappointment in her elder son or that Abel personified for her the miseries of human life. In this chapter Abel is seven times called Cain’s brother, seeming to emphasize the heinousness of Cain’s sin.
A keeper of sheep. There is no reason for finding in the professions chosen by the two men an intimation of difference in moral character, although these choices were probably determined by their talents and tastes.
3. In process of time. Literally, “at the end of days.” This denotes the passing of a considerable, indefinite period of time, and may indicate the harvest season. To understand it as meaning the end of a week or a year, as has been done by some commentators, hardly seems warranted in this instance, since there is no particular reason why either should be mentioned here. The word yamim, “days,” is, however, used in a number of instances where the context makes it clear that a year is meant. In such cases it has been translated “year” (see Ex. 13:10; Num. 9:22; 1 Sam. 2:19; 27:7; 2 Chron. 21:19; etc.).
An offering unto the Lord. “Offering,” minchah. Minchah is used in the Levitical laws for the bloodless thank offering, consisting of flour and oil, or flour prepared with frankincense (Lev. 2:1, 4, 14, 15). Here, however, the word has a wider meaning and includes both meal offerings and animals sacrifices, because it is used as a designation not only for Cain’s bloodless offering but also for Abel’s sacrifice (see v. 4). It is not stated that either Cain or Abel built an altar for their offerings, but obviously they must have done so (see PP 71). The next time the offering of a sacrifices is reported in the Bible, its altar is mentioned (Gen. 8:20). The system of sacrificial offerings had been introduced by God at the time man was expelled from the garden (PP 68, 71). The following verses make it plain that Cain knew he was doing wrong in bringing the kind of gift he offered to God. He had been taught that the blood of the Son of God would atone for his sins. By following the divinely instituted rule of sacrificing a lamb for his sins, he would show allegiance to God, who had ordained the sacrificial system, and express faith in the plan of redemption (Heb. 11:4). The universal prevalence of sacrifices among ancient peoples points to a divine precept rather than to human invention as their origin (see DA 28).
What was it that made Cain’s offering unacceptable to God? He acknowledged, in part, grudgingly, the claims of God upon him. But a secret spirit of resentment and rebellion prompted him to meet the claims of God in a way of his own choosing rather than to follow precisely the plan ordained by God. Ostensibly he complied, but the manner of his compliance revealed a defiant spirit. Cain proposed to justify himself by his own works, to earn salvation by his own merits. Refusing to recognize himself a sinner in need of a savior, he offered a gift that expressed no penitence for sin—a bloodless offering. And “without shedding of blood is no remission,” for “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11; PP 71, 72).
Cain recognized the existence of God and His power to give or to withhold earthly blessings. Feeling it advantageous to live on good terms with Deity, Cain considered it expedient to appease and avert divine wrath by a gift, even though it be offered grudgingly. He failed to realize that partial, formal compliance with the explicit requirements of God could not earn His favor as a substitute for true obedience and contrition of heart. We today do well to examine our hearts lest we, like Cain, be found offering to God valueless and unacceptable gifts.
4. The firstlings of his flock. The word “firstlings” indicates that Abel brought of the first-born of his flock (see Ex. 13:12). The sacrificial ordinance as set forth by Moses required the sprinkling of the blood of first-born animals upon the altar and the burning of their fat in the fire (Num. 18:17). Abel’s offering was a demonstration of faith (Heb. 11:4). Cain’s offering, in contrast, was an attempt to earn salvation by works. With Abel, faith in the plan of salvation and in the atoning sacrifice of Christ revealed itself in unquestioning obedience.
Had respect. Sha‘ah, “to consider graciously.” Though the manner of God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering is not here revealed, it consisted in the appearance of heavenly fire to consume the sacrifice, as often in later times (see Lev. 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chron. 21:26; 2 Chron. 7:1; PP 71). It is noteworthy that God’s acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice betokened the acceptance of his person; in the narrative, in fact, mention of the acceptance of Abel himself precedes mention of the acceptance of his offering. This is an indication that God was not so interested in the sacrifice as in the one who brought it.
5. Unto Cain and to his offering. Cain noticed that absence of any visible sign of God’s pleasure and acceptance of his offering. A deeply burning anger was the result. The Hebrew phrase here used can be translated literally, “It burned with Cain exceedingly.” He felt fierce resentment against his brother and toward God. There was apparently no sorrow for sin, no spirit of self-examination, no prayer for light or pardon. Cain’s behavior is a typical example of a stubborn and unrepentant sinner whose heart does not melt under correction and reproof but becomes even more hard and rebellious. No attempt was made by Cain to hide feelings of disappointment, dissatisfaction, and anger. His face bespoke his resentment.
6. Why art thou wroth? Here it is evident, as in vs. 14 and 16, that God did not cease making personal contact with men at the time He expelled them from the garden. The rejection of Cain’s offering did not necessarily mean the rejection of Cain himself. In mercy and patience God was ready to give him another chance. Though clearly manifesting His displeasure by rejecting the offering, God appeared to the sinner and reasoned with him in an attempt to persuade him of the error of his way and the unreasonableness of his anger. God spoke to Cain as to a willful child, to draw out into the open that which was lurking like a wild beast before the door of his heart. The question Why was designed to lead Cain to acknowledge the baselessness of his anger. For the rejection of his offering there must be a valid reason, which he should discover and eliminate.
7. If thou doest well. This verse presents certain linguistic difficulties that have led some modern commentators to think that a copyist’s error has changed the Hebrew text. That the translators of the LXX found its meaning obscure even in their time is apparent from their garbled translation of it. The rabbis tried to explain it in the sense that Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not follow precisely the rules of Levitical ritual. But the obvious contrast between the results of “doing well” and those of “not doing well” precludes such an explanation. The first clause reads literally, “Is there not lifting up if thou doest well?” What will be lifted up? The burden of guilt or the countenance? The expression “to lift up one’s face” for “to be joyful or innocent” is common in Hebrew (Job 11:15; 22:26; 2 Sam. 2:22), and probably appears here in an abbreviated form as a complement to the preceding statement that Cain’s countenance had fallen (v. 6). God wished Cain to understand that if he would mend his ways and live according to the divine precepts, there would be no more reason for God to show His displeasure and no more reason for Cain to show a disappointed and angry face. However, if Cain would not change, but would continue in the pathway of evil, sin would overwhelm him. The phrase “sin lieth at the door” (like a wild beast) is probably a proverbial one (see 1 Peter 5:8).
Sin. Some have suggested that the Hebrew word here translated “sin,” chaṭṭa’th, should be rendered “sin offering,” as it is in nearly half the passages where it occurs in the OT (see for example Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:32; Num. 7:16, 22; etc.; cf. Hosea 4:8; Heb. 9:28; 2 Cor. 5:21). God would then be saying to Cain, “If you were innocent, your [bloodless] offering would be acceptable as a thank offering, would it not? And when you have sinned, is there not a sin offering ready at hand?” One difficulty in rendering chaṭṭa’th as “sin offering” should be pointed out. Chaṭṭa’th, is feminine, whereas the participle robeṣ, “lieth,” is masculine. It should be feminine if it is to agree with chaṭṭa’th, its subject. This difference suggests that Moses was personifying “sin” as a wild beast crouching at the door, and so deliberately chose to make robeṣ agree with the masculine wild beast of his figure of speech rather than with the subject in its literal sense as “sin” or “sin offering.”
Unto thee shall be his desire. This cannot refer to Abel as having a “desire” toward his elder brother in the same sense as Eve toward her husband (see ch. 3:16), that is, to accept his supremacy. Such an explanation would seem to be at variance with the context and with divine principles. If sin is personified as a wild beast lying in wait for Cain, it would be appropriate to continue the comparison by translating, as does the RSV, “its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
8. Cain talked with Abel. The subject of Cain’s talk with his brother is not stated. The RSV, following the Samaritan Version and the LXX, has added the words, “Let us go out into the field.” This clause appears to be a copyist’s addition, though the context makes it entirely possible that the original read thus. It is improbable that Cain told Abel what God had just said to him, but he may have tried to argue with his brother, accusing God of unrighteousness in His dealings with him.
When they were in the field. Cain’s “works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12). That is why Cain killed his brother. Enmity between good and evil, predicted by God before the expulsion from the garden, was seen now for the first time in its most horrible form. Twice in this verse the words “his brother” are added to the name of Abel to bring out clearly the horror of Cain’s sin. In him the seed of the woman had already become the seed of the serpent. Cain’s crime revealed the true nature of Satan as “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Already there had sprung up that contrast of two distinct “seeds” within the human race, a contrast that runs through the entire history of mankind.
9. Where is Abel thy brother? As with Adam and Eve, God now sought after Cain, to present his transgression to him in its true light, to stir up his guilty conscience to repentance, and to create in him a new heart. As God had come to Cain’s parents with a question, so He now came to Cain. The results, however, were vastly different; Cain boldly denied his guilt. Disobedience had led to murder; to murder he now added falsehood and defiance, blindly thinking to hide his crime from God.
10. What hast thou done? The tactful, indirect approach having proved unavailing, God proceeded to charge Cain with his crime. The question “What hast thou done?” implied perfect knowledge of the facts.
The voice of thy brother’s blood. The trembling murderer found an all-seeing and all-knowing God reading his naked soul. How could He who notes the sparrow’s fall, He who is the author of life, be deaf to the silent cry of the first martyr (see Ps. 116:15)? Blood is life, and as such is precious to the great Giver of life (Gen. 9:4).
Against all the inhumanity of man toward his fellow men down through the intervening ages, the cry of Abel ascends to God (Heb. 11:4). Abel met his death at the hand of a near kinsman. Similarly, Jesus, coming to this earth as a kinsman to the human race, was rejected and sent to His death by His brethren.
11. Now art thou cursed. A divine curse had already been visited upon the serpent and the ground (ch. 3:14, 17); now for the first time it falls on man. The Hebrew phrase rendered in the KJV, thou art “cursed from the earth,” may with equal accuracy be translated as a comparative, “Thou art more cursed than the earth.” Some commentators have understood this text to mean that Cain was banished to a less fertile region. The context (vs. 12, 14) seems to favor this explanation, or perhaps the idea that because Cain had misused the fruits of the ground God would no longer permit him to gain his livelihood by tilling the soil. A wanderer in the earth (vs. 14, 16), whether shepherd or nomad, cannot be a successful farmer.
12. It shall not henceforth yield. Cain was doomed to a life of perpetual wandering in order to secure food for himself, his family, and his beasts. Having been compelled to drink innocent blood, the earth rebelled, as it were, against the murderer; and when he should till it, it would withhold its strength. Cain was to have but little reward for his labor. Similarly, at a later time, the land of Canaan is said to have “spued out” the Canaanites on account of their abominations (Lev. 18:28).
13. Greater than I can bear. The divine sentence turned Cain’s truculence into despair. Though Cain deserved the death penalty, a merciful and patient God gave him further opportunity for repentance and conversion. But instead of repenting, Cain complained of his punishment as being more severe than he deserved. No word of sorrow came from his lips, not even a recognition of guilt or of shame, nothing but the sad resignation of a criminal who realizes he is powerless to escape the penalty he so justly deserves.
14. Thou hast driven me out. Cain knew that he was to be cut off, not only from the blessings of the earth, but, by his own choice, from all contract with God as well.
Every one that findeth me. Cain despaired of his own life, in fear that the curse of God meant the withdrawal of divine restraint from those who might seek to avenge Abel’s blood. A guilty conscience warned him that he deserved to die and that henceforth his own life was in danger. But the death penalty, his due, was commuted to banishment for life. Instead of being imprisoned he was to be shut out from every happy, normal association with his fellow men, and, by his own choice, from God. He who had taken his brother’s life saw in his fellow creatures his own prospective executioners.
15. Therefore. It is not entirely clear what antecedent idea is intended by this word. The RSV, following the LXX, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, renders it, “Not so!” In other words, to Cain’s declaration, “Every one that findeth me shall slay me,” God replied, “Not so!”
Sevenfold. This implies a most severe penalty upon anyone murdering Cain (see Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28; Ps. 79:12; Prov. 6:31). Special protection was granted him in harmony with the principle, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). The tares must grow together with the wheat; the fruits of sin must be permitted to reach maturity, in order that the character of its seed may be manifest. The lives of Cain and his descendants were to be exhibits of the outworking of sin in rational beings (PP 78).
A mark. Some commentators have seen in this mark an outward sign attached to Cain’s person, whereas others believe that he received a sign from God as a divine pledge that nothing would endanger his life. Whatever it was, it was not a sign of God’s forgiveness but only of temporal protection.
16. Cain went out. He felt neither remorse nor repentance, but only the heavy burden of God’s displeasure. He left the divine presence, probably never to return, and began his life as a wanderer in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden. This antediluvian land, whose name means “wandering,” “flight,” or “exile,” became the home of the godless descendants of Cain.
17. Cain knew his wife. The sudden mention of Cain’s wife creates no problem. Chapter 5:4 states that Adam “begat sons and daughters” besides the three sons whose names are given. The earliest inhabitants of earth had no other choice than to marry their brothers and sisters in order to fulfill the divine command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (see Acts 17:26). That the custom long remained in vogue is seen in Abraham’s marriage to his half sister Sarah. Such marriages were later prohibited (see Lev. 18:6-17).
She conceived, and bare Enoch. That God did not withhold offspring from the disobedient and reprobate Cain is another evidence of His merciful character (Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:45). The name “Enoch” may mean “dedication” or “consecration” it may also mean “initiation.” Perhaps the name Cain gave his son indicated his intention to begin living his life as he pleased. Luther thought the mother may have selected the name Enoch, thereby expressing hope that the child might be an augury of blessing for their saddened home.
He builded a city. Literally, “he began to build.” This was probably no more than an attempt to erect a fortified camp for his family as a more or less permanent place of abode. This suggests that Cain may not have had much confidence in God’s assurance of protection. It is possible also that his attempt to found a city may have been dictated by a desire to bid defiance to the curse that doomed him to a wandering life.
It is worthy of note that the world’s first “city” was founded by the world’s first murderer, a perversely impenitent individual whose life, wholly and hopelessly dedicated to evil, was spent in defiance of God. God’s plan that man should live amid nature and behold in it the Creator’s might and power was in this way thwarted. Many present-day evils are the direct result of the unnatural gathering together of human beings into great cities, where man’s worst instincts bear rule, and vice of every type flourishes.
The name of the city. In naming this city after his son Enoch, “dedication” or “initiation,” Cain apparently consecrated it to the realization of his sinful ambitions.
18. Unto Enoch was born Irad. Of the following generations only names are mentioned. The names resemble those of some of Seth’s descendants, as for instance Irad and Jared, Mehujael and Mahalaleel, Methusael and Methuselah, Cain and Cainan, but the names of Enoch and Lamech occur in both families. Critical scholars have considered this as proof that the two genealogical tables are simply different forms of one original legend. However, similarity in names in no way implies identity of persons. For instance, the name Korah appears in the families of Levi (Ex. 6:24) and Esau (Gen. 36:5), and Enoch is the name not only of Cain’s son and one of Seth’s pious descendants but also of the eldest son of Reuben (ch. 46:9), and of a son of Midian (ch. 25:4). The character of Enoch the son of Cain is in such distinct contrast to that of Enoch in the line of Seth as to preclude identifying the two as one individual.
As to the other pairs of names, similarity is only superficial. The names in Hebrew, as in English, are not identical either in spelling or in meaning. For example, Irad has been translated as “townsman” or “ornament of a city,” Jared as “descent.” Mehujael may mean either “smitten of God” or “destroyed of God”; Mahalaleel, “praise of God.” Methusael has the meaning “man of God” or “man of prayer”; Methuselah, “man of growth.” The meaning of Lamech is not known.
19. Lamech took unto him two wives. Lamech was the first to pervert marriage as ordained by God into the lust of the eye and the lust of the flesh, without even the pretext that the first wife had no children. Polygamy was a new evil that held its ground for long centuries. The names of Lamech’s wives are suggestive of sensual attraction, Adah meaning “adornment” and Zillah either “shadow” or “tinkling.”
20. Adah bare Jabal. The names of Adah’s two sons occur nowhere else in the Bible. Their meaning is not clear. Jabal may mean “sprout,” “leader,” or “stream”; Jubal, a “joyful sound” or a “channel.” These names may indicate their particular abilities. The first was a typical nomadic herdsman. Meaning literally “possession,” the word “cattle” signifies the wealth of the nomads, which consisted of sheep and other domesticated animals.
21. Such as handle the harp and organ. “Harp,” kinnor. The world’s first musical instrument, the “harp,” is mentioned 42 times in the OT (see Ps. 33:2; etc.). The word kinnor is always translated in the KJV “harp,” though it is actually a lyre. Many ancient pictures of this instrument from Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia bring us a clear idea of what the kinnor was like. These pictures represent the instrument as consisting of a sounding board across which strings are stretched. In the earliest instruments the strings run parallel, but in later models they diverge as they extend outward.
The origin of the word translated in the KJV “organ,” in the RV “pipe,” and identified by some with the bagpipe, is not so certain as that of the lyre. Whatever the correct explanation of the name may be, all modern scholars agree that the instrument was a flute. This instrument is still played by the shepherds throughout the Near East.
22. Tubal-cain. Although “Tubal” appears frequently as a personal name in the OT (Gen. 10:2; Isa. 66:19; Eze. 27:13; etc.), its meaning is obscure. The word “cain” may have been added later, perhaps to identify him as a Cainite.
An instructer of every artificer. The Hebrew word translated “instructer” in the KJV means literally “hammerer,” “whetter,” or “forger,” and refers to early work in bronze and iron, which was more a process of hammering than of smelting. Doubt has been expressed that iron was known as early as Genesis implies. However, recent discoveries made in Egypt and Mesopotamia have shown that iron objects were produced in the earliest historical periods of which we have record. The first iron objects were meteoric, their high percentage of nickel precluding terrestrial origin. Objects made of meteoric iron must have been produced by hammering rather than by smelting, again confirming the Biblical record. Though early man did not have bronze and iron in large quantities, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible statement that antediluvian man knew how to use these metals. Copper, bronze, and iron objects (ornaments, tools, weapons, vessels, etc.) from very early levels of civilization are being found in increasing numbers.
Naamah. Why Tubal-cain’s sister should be specifically mentioned is unknown. Jewish tradition made her Noah’s wife. Her name, meaning “the beautiful” or “the pleasant one,” reflects the worldly mind of the Cainites, who looked for beauty rather than for character as the chief attraction in women.
23. I have slain a man. Lamech’s words, in Hebrew poetic form, have aptly been called the “Song of Lamech.” So far as is known this “song” constitutes the world’s first poetic composition. The exact meaning of his somewhat cryptic words is difficult to ascertain. Origen wrote two books concerning the “song” and then pronounced it beyond explanation. The Hebrew words employed permit the explanation that Lamech had slain one or two men for wounds they had inflicted upon him, with the implication that he would be ready to commit such acts again should the necessity arise. His threatened revenge, however, is ambiguous, and leaves room for more than one interpretation. The RSV reads: “I have slain a man for wounding me.”
25. Seth. After having reported the development of the ungodly family of Cain, the author returns to Adam and Eve and recounts briefly the history of those who were loyal to God. Shortly after Abel’s death a third son was born, to whom his mother gave the name Seth, Sheth, the “appointed one,” the “compensation” or “substitute” for Abel. Eve, seeing that her godly son was dead and recognizing that God’s words concerning the promised seed could not find their fulfillment in cursed Cain, expressed her faith that the promised Deliverer would come through Seth. Her faith was rewarded, for the descendants of Seth obeyed the Lord.
26. Enos. In his time a more formal worship was begun. Man had of course called upon the Lord before Enos’ birth, but as time went on a more pronounced distinction arose between those who worshiped the Lord and those who defied Him. The expression “to call upon the name of the Lord” is used frequently in the OT to indicate, as it does here, public worship (Ps. 79:6; 116:17; Jer. 10:25; Zeph. 3:9).
1. This is the book. A period of about 1,500 years is covered in the list of generations presented in this chapter. Only the names of the principal patriarchs, their age at the birth of their first-born sons, and their total age are given. In somewhat monotonous outline we see them being born, growing up to manhood, marrying wives, begetting children, and then dying, without leaving to posterity more than their names to remember. Only two, Enoch and Noah, surpass the others in excellence and piety. Enoch was the first sinner, saved by grace, to be honored with translation; Noah was the only family head to survive the Flood.
This chapter contains a family register like others incorporated at different places into the OT narrative. The expression, “the book of the generations of” someone, is a technical term for a genealogical list (see Matt. 1:1). The word “book,” sepher, is used in the OT to refer to a complete scroll (Jer. 36:2, 8) or for a single leaf of a scroll (Deut. 24:1).
2. Called their name Adam. The dignity of their being created in God’s likeness, their distinction in sex, and their divine benediction are described briefly. The only new information is the name given them by God—“man,” ’adam. From this text it is clear that the name Adam was originally generic, inclusive of both the man and the woman, and equivalent to our word mankind.
3. In his own likeness. Though Seth was not Adam’s first-born son, he was the one through whom the godly line was to be perpetuated. Adam’s career after the Fall is summarized in three short verses that serve as a pattern for subsequent biographies.
5. All the days that Adam lived. The remarkable longevity of the antediluvian race has been the target of much criticism. Some have declared that the figures are the product of a mythical age or the result of faulty transmission of the text. Others have suggested that they do not represent individuals but dynasties, or that they were not years but shorter periods, perhaps months. All such considerations must be rejected as doing violence to a literal interpretation of the text and to its inspired origin. We must accept these figures as historical and accurate. The longevity of the antediluvian race may be attributed to the following causes: (1) the original vitality with which mankind was endowed at creation, (2) superior piety and intelligence, (3) the residual effect of the fruit of the tree of life, (4) the superior quality of available food, and (5) divine grace in postponing the execution of the penalty of sin. Adam lived to see eight successive generations reach maturity. Inasmuch as his life spanned more than half the time to the Flood, it is apparent that many could hear from his own lips the story of creation, of Eden, of the Fall, and of the plan of redemption as it had been revealed to him.
And he died. With these somber words ends Adam’s short biography. The monotonous repetition of this statement at the close of each biography—except that of Enoch—affirms the dominion of death (Rom. 5:12). It reveals that the sentence of death was not a vain threat. Death is a persistent reminder of the nature and results of disobedience.
Biographies of the succeeding patriarchs follow the pattern of Adam’s life story and do not call for individual explanation (see on ch. 4:17, 18 for an explanation of some of the names).
22. Enoch walked with God. Enoch’s most exceptional life called for very special attention. Twice it is stated that “he walked with God.” This expression is used also of Noah (ch. 6:9), and is found, in similar words, in other passages (see Gen. 17:1; Deut. 13:4; Ps. 116:9; Micah 6:8; Eph. 5:1, 2). It portrays a life of singularly elevated piety, not merely the constant realization of the divine presence or even a continued effort at holy obedience, but maintenance of the most intimate relations with God. Enoch’s life was most evidently in complete and beautiful harmony with the divine will.
After he begat Methuselah. The statement that “he walked with God” after Methuselah’s birth does not imply that he had been a godless person before and only now experienced conversion. He belonged to the faithful race and doubtless had served God loyally during the first 65 years of his life. But with the arrival of a son to grace his home he understood through experience the depth of a father’s love and the confidence of a helpless baby. As never before he was drawn to God, his own heavenly Father, and eventually qualified for translation. His walk with God consisted not only in the contemplation of God but also in active ministry on behalf of his fellow men. He looked forward to the second Advent of Christ, earnestly and solemnly warning the sinners around him of the terrible doom that awaited the ungodly (Jude 14, 15).
Three hundred years. Enoch’s constant faithfulness manifested over a period of 300 years speaks encouragement to those Christians who seem to find it difficult to “walk with God” for even one day.
And begat sons and daughters. According to the Inspired Record, Enoch begat sons and daughters during this life of exceptional piety. Here is undeniable evidence that the state of matrimony is in accord with the most strict life of holiness.
24. He was not; for God took him. The most significant event of the antediluvian era, an event that filled the faithful with hope and joy, the translation of Enoch, is related by Moses in these few simple words. Enoch was translated “that he should not see death” (Heb. 11:5). This meaning is implicit in the word laqach, “he [God] took away,” a word that is never used to denote death. Modern Christian usage of the expression as a euphemism for death is without Scriptural authority. The word is used, however, in connection with Elijah’s translation (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 9, 10). The LXX renders it “for God translated him,” an expression taken over literally in Heb. 11:5. So far as we know, Enoch was the only antediluvian believer not to see death. As a paragon of virtue, Enoch, “the seventh from Adam,” stands in sharp contrast to the seventh generation of the Cainite line, Lamech, who added the crime of murder to the vice of polygamy (Jude 14; cf. Gen. 4:16-19).
Enoch’s departure was witnessed by some of both the righteous and the wicked (see PP 88). The translation of Enoch was designed by God, not only to reward the piety of a godly man, but to demonstrate the certainty of God’s promised deliverance from sin and death. The memory of this remarkable event has survived in Jewish tradition (Ecclesiasticus 44:16), in the Christian record (Heb. 11:5; Jude 14), and even in heathen fables. The Apocryphal Book of Enoch describes the patriarch as exhorting his son and all his contemporaries, and warning them of coming judgment. The Jewish Book of Jubilee says that he was carried into Paradise, where he wrote down the judgment of all men. Arabic legends have made him the inventor of writing and arithmetic. His departure must have made a tremendous impression upon his contemporaries, if we are to judge by the extent to which the story of Enoch has come down to later generations. Enoch’s exemplary life with its glorious climax testifies in our day of the possibility of living in a wicked world without being “of it.”
25. Methuselah. Enoch’s short earthly life of only 365 years was followed by that of his son Methuselah, who lived for 969 years, to within the year of the Flood. The meaning of his name is uncertain. Commentators have explained it variously as “man of military weapons,” “man of sending forth,” or “man of growth.” The meaning of the name of his son Lamech is even more obscure.
29. Noah. In the hope that his first-born might be the promised seed, the redeemer for whose coming the faithful longingly waited, Lamech called him Noah, “rest,” saying, “this same one shall comfort us.” The name “Noah,” nuach, “to rest,” and the word “to comfort,” nacham, both point back to a common root meaning “to sigh,” “to breathe,” “to rest,” and “to lie down.” Lamech was a godly man who followed in the footsteps of his exemplary grandfather Enoch and his pious, long-lived father Methuselah.
Our work. Lamech apparently felt the burden of tilling the ground that God had cursed and looked forward in faith to the time when the existing misery and corruption would cease and redemption from the curse would come. His hope that this might be realized in his son was not fulfilled, at least in the way he expected. Nevertheless, Noah was destined to proclaim a bold warning against evil and to play an important role by becoming the progenitor of all who have lived since his time.
32. Noah was five hundred years old. In Hebrew this expression reads literally, “Noah was a son of 500 years,” meaning that he was in his 500th year. Now “son of a year” means, strictly speaking, within the first year of life (Ex. 12:5). This fact, an important point in Hebrew chronological language, becomes even more clear from a comparison of the 6th and 11th verses of ch. 7. Although both verses speak of the beginning of the Flood, one of them declares Noah to be 600 years old, and the other says that the event occurred in Noah’s 600th year. Consequently the former verse, “Noah was a son of 600 years,” means that he was “in his 600th year,” and not in his 601st year as we would naturally conclude.
Not one of the preceding patriarchs waited so many years before the birth of his offspring as did Noah; half a millennium passed before his own home was blessed by the arrival of a son (see p. 183). This genealogy breaks off with Noah, mentioning only the birth of his sons. The mention of all three sons foreshadows their importance in repopulating the earth after the Flood.
Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another principle of Hebrew genealogy must be explained in this connection. From the sequence of the names of Noah’s sons given here and elsewhere the impression may be gained that Shem was the oldest and Japheth the youngest of Noah’s three sons. That this is incorrect can be seen from a comparison of this text with certain others. Noah’s sons were not triplets (see chs. 9:24; 10:21). According to ch. 9:24 Ham was the youngest of the brothers. Chapter 10:21, furthermore, refers either to Shem or to Japheth as “the elder” of the two, although the ambiguous Hebrew grammatical construction does not make it clear which of the two was older. From ch. 11:10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old two years after the Flood, when his father would be about 602 years of age; the age of Noah at Shem’s birth must then have been 502 years—not 500 as might be inferred from ch. 5:32. But one of the three, the eldest, was born in Noah’s 500th year (ch. 5:32). These texts lead to the conclusion that actually Japheth was the eldest son of Noah, being born when his father was 500 years old, and that Shem and Ham followed in that order. The KJV translation of ch. 10:21 is therefore the correct one, rather than that of the RSV, according to which Shem would have been the eldest son. The last part of ch. 5:32 would therefore be stated more accurately, “And Noah began to beget Japheth, Shem, and Ham.”
Shem is mentioned as the first of the three sons because of his importance as the progenitor of the postdiluvian patriarchal line from which the chosen people of God, together with the promised seed, should spring. Ham is mentioned next as the forefather of races with whom the OT readers of Moses’ time, and later, had much more contact than with the descendants of Japheth, who inhabited more remote regions. The same principle is repeated in Abraham’s case, where he, the youngest of Terah’s sons, is mentioned first (ch. 11:27) on account of his greater importance to those for whom the record was written.
By reducing the ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech at the birth of their first-born sons, the Samaritan Pentateuch leaves only 1,307 years between creation and the Flood, instead of 1.656 years as in the Hebrew text and English translations based upon it.
But the LXX, in contrast, presents a much longer period before the Flood. It does this by assigning to some of the patriarchs, at the oldest son’s birth, an age 100 years higher than does the Hebrew text. Therefore it arrives at a total of 2,242 or 2,262 years (the various MSS show a discrepancy between 167 and 187 for Methuselah’s age at the birth of Lamech).
Josephus, whose figures are practically identical with those of the LXX, presumably derived them from that version, which was current in his day. Josephus gives Methuselah’s age as 187.
If the Septuagint figure 187 for Lamech is to be taken as a correction of an earlier 167, it can be easily accounted for (see p. 180).
Many readers are not aware of those differences in the ancient lists, because the KJV and practically all other Protestant translations into English are based on the Hebrew text.
the chronology of genesis 5
| Hebrew
|
| Samaritan
|
| LXX
|
| Josephus
|
|
| Age at son’s birth | Age at death | Age at son’s birth | Age at death | Age at son’s birth | Age at death | Age at son’s birth | Age at death |
Adam | 130 | 930 | 130 | 930 | 230 | 930 | 230 | 930 |
Seth | 105 | 912 | 105 | 912 | 205 | 912 | 205 | 912 |
Enos | 90 | 905 | 90 | 905 | 190 | 905 | 190 | 905 |
Cainan | 70 | 910 | 70 | 910 | 170 | 910 | 170 | 910 |
Mahalaleel | 65 | 895 | 65 | 895 | 165 | 895 | 165 | 895 |
Jared | 162 | 962 | 62 | 847 | 162 | 962 | 162 | 962 |
Enoch | 65 | 365 | 65 | 365 | 165 | 365 | 165 | 365 |
Methuselah | 187 | 969 | 67 | 720 | 167* | 969 | 187 | 969 |
Lamech | 182 | 777 | 53 | 653 | 188 | 753 | 182 | 777 |
Noah | 500 | 950 | 500 | 950 | 500 | 950 | 500 | 950 |
Noah’s age at Flood |
600 |
|
600 |
|
600 |
|
600 |
|
It is interesting to note that, just as the list in Gen. 5 records ten long-lived generations before the Flood, similarly the ancient Mesopotamian traditions also point to precisely ten generations before the Flood and to the longevity of the race during that era. The Babylonian list opens with the remark that “sovereignty descended from heaven,” and gives Alulim, meaning “man,” as the progenitor of the human race (cf. Heb. ’adam, “man”). There are no other similarities between the two lists, however, either in the names or in time periods.
1. And it came to pass. This expression does not imply that the conditions here described arose subsequent to events recorded in previous chapters. The author is simply pointing to the state of society in the days of Noah, when ten generations of increasing corruption reached a climax.
Men began to multiply. The human race increased rapidly not only in wickedness but in numbers as well. Among the manifold dangers for pious Sethites were the beautiful daughters of unbelievers. Wives were taken not because of their virtue but for beauty’s sake, with the result that godlessness and wickedness made heavy inroads among Seth’s descendants.
2. The sons of God. This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these “sons” to be angels, comparing them with the “sons of God” of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v. 3), and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). The “sons of God” were none other than the descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men,” of the godless Cainites (PP 81). God later spoke of Israel as His “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel “children of the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:1).
They took them wives. These unholy alliances between Sethites and Cainites were responsible for the rapid increase of wickedness among the former. God has ever warned His followers not to marry unbelievers, because of the great danger to which the believer is thus exposed and to which he usually succumbs (Deut. 7:3, 4; Joshua 23:12, 13; Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:25; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15). But the Sethites did not heed the warnings they surely must have received. Guided by sense attractions, they were not content with the beautiful daughters of the godly race, and often preferred Cainite brides. Moreover, the prevalence of polygamy seems to be suggested by the plural expression used, they took “wives.”
3. My spirit shall not always strive. The fact that this statement follows immediately after the reference to these unsanctified marriages would suggest that God’s displeasure was most particularly displayed toward this evil practice. Captive to their passions, they were no longer subject to God’s Spirit. The word “strive” in the Hebrew means “to rule,” and “to judge,” as corollary to ruling. These words indicate that the Holy Spirit could continue working but a little longer, and would then be withdrawn from the unregenerate and unrepentant of the human race. Even God’s long-suffering must end. Peter refers to the work of the Spirit on the hearts of the antediluvians, saying that the Spirit of Christ preached to these prisoners of Satan (1 Peter 3:18-20).
For that he also is flesh. This expression may also be translated, “in their going astray man is flesh,” from shagag, “to wander,” “to go astray.” By following after the lusts of the flesh, says God, men have surrendered themselves to its desires to the extent that they are no longer responsive to the control of the Holy Spirit. Insensibility to divine influence is complete; hence, the Spirit of God is to be withdrawn. There is no further use in “striving” to restrain or improve them.
His days. This divine prediction cannot mean that man’s life span would henceforth be restricted to 120 years. (Compare ages of men after the Flood.) They predict, rather, that God’s patience would come to an end and probation close within the period of time here specified. In the meantime, divine mercy lingered.
Christ compared God’s dealings with the antediluvians to His work for the human race at the end of time (Matt. 24:37-39). Under similar circumstances God may be expected to work in similar ways. However, attempts to determine the time of Christ’s coming on the basis of this are wholly invalid. We are now living on borrowed time, knowing that the destruction of the world will soon occur (see 2 Peter 3:3-7). We know also that God’s Spirit will not endlessly strive with men who do not choose to heed His warnings and prepare for that great event.
4. There were giants in the earth. These “giants,” nephilim, were not the product of mixed marriages, as some have suggested. The LXX translated nephilim by gigantes, from which the English “giant” is derived. In Num. 13:33 the Israelites reported that they felt like mere grasshoppers in the sight of the nephilim, which the KJV translates “giants.” There is reason to believe that this Hebrew word may come from the root naphal, and that the nephilim were “violent” ones, or terrorists, rather than physical “giants.” Since in those days the entire human race was of great stature, it must be that character rather than height is designated. The antediluvians generally possessed great physical and mental strength. These individuals, renowned for wisdom and skill, persistently devoted their intellectual and physical powers to the gratification of their own pride and passions and to the oppression of their fellow men (PP 80, 84, 90).
5. God. To be consistent, the KJV should read “Lord” instead of “God,” as in the Hebrew the word Yahweh, Jehovah, is used. Apparently, KJV translators were influenced by the LXX, which reads, the “Lord God.”
The wickedness of man was great. Human language could hardly provide a more forceful picture of human depravity. There was no more good left in man; he was “rotten to the core.” His “every imagination” was evil. The word “imagination,” from yeser, means “device” or “formation,” and is derived from the verb “to fashion,” “to form,” yaṣar. Therefore “imagination” refers to evil thoughts as the product of an evil heart. Christ said, “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,” and observed that they in turn produce “murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:19). The heart was popularly considered the center of the higher powers of the mind—the conscience and the will. A contaminated “heart” sooner or later infects the entire life.
Continually. Literally “every day” or “all day long.” This brings the sorry description of antediluvian wickedness to a climax. If this is not total depravity, how could human language express it? Here we find evil supreme in the heart, in the “imaginations,” or thoughts, and in the actions. With very few exceptions, there was nothing but evil, not temporarily but always, not in the case of merely a few individuals but in society as a whole. This came about because men were “willingly ignorant” of God’s word (2 Peter 3:5).
6. It repented the Lord. The force of the words “it repented” the Lord, may be gathered from the explanatory statement “it grieved him” to His heart. This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose lack of foresight on His part or any variableness in His nature or purpose. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Sam. 15:29). The “repentance” of God is an expression referring to the pain of divine love occasioned by the sinfulness of man. It presents the truth that God, in consistency with His immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man. The mention of divine grief at man’s depraved state is a touching indication that God did not hate man. Human sin fills the divine heart with deep-felt grief and pity. It excites all the fathomless ocean of sympathy for sinning men of which infinite love is capable. Nonetheless, it moves Him also to judicial retribution (see Jer. 18:6-10; PP 630).
7. I will destroy man. The Hebrew expression here translated “I will destroy” means literally “I will wipe off” or “blot out” or “erase” (see Ex. 32:32, 33; Isa. 43:25). Its use in this passage, describing the extinction of the human race in general, by a devastating flood, is most appropriate.
8. Noah found grace. In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath. By them God pledged the preservation and restoration of humanity. The word “grace” occurs here for the first time in Scripture, and clearly has the same meaning as in the NT references, where the merciful, unmerited favor of God exercised toward undeserving sinners is described. How deeply God loved man even in his fallen state can be observed from a number of factors. He gave them a gospel of mercy, in the promise of the woman’s seed; a ministry of mercy, by raising up and maintaining a succession of pious men to preach the gospel and warn them against the ways of sin; a spirit of mercy to strive and plead with them; a providence of mercy, by measuring out to them a long probationary period of time; an additional grant of mercy, a reprieve of 120 years; and finally an example of mercy, by saving the righteous when all others were destroyed. This ancient example of grace and mercy is a source of assurance and hope for believers who live at the end of time, a time that Christ Himself compared to Noah’s age (see Matt. 24:37-39). His loyal followers can rest assured that God will accept them as He accepted Noah, will likewise preserve them amid the evil of this day, and provide for their safety in the coming judgment.
9. Noah was a just man. A new subtitle introduces Noah’s history and that of the Flood. The author presents, first, the reasons why Noah had found grace in God’s sight and was spared during the coming destruction. It was not some divine whim that made him the recipient of God’s favor, but a life that was in harmony with God’s will. Noah is characterized by three expressions, each one placing him in a most favorable light in contrast with his contemporaries. He was a “just man.” The word “just” does not imply spotless innocence, but uprightness, honesty, virtue. It is noteworthy that he is not merely called “just,” but a “just man.” To live an exemplary life in Noah’s time required a man who could stand fearlessly and steadfastly against evil inducements, subtle temptations, and vile mockery. He was no weakling, void of judgment or will power; he was a “man,” strong of conviction, straight in thinking and action.
Perfect in his generations. The second attribute points to Noah as being “blameless in his generation,” RSV. This does not mean that he lived in a state of sinlessness, but rather of moral integrity. It refers not only to Noah’s lifetime of piety but also to the constancy of his religion amid the miasma of iniquity in which he lived. To be sure, he was of pure descent, and in that respect also distinct from his contemporaries, many of whom were the offspring of promiscuous marriages between the godly and the ungodly.
Noah walked with God. Third, Noah’s life resembled that of his pious ancestor Enoch (see ch. 5:22, 24), who had been translated to eternal glory only 69 years before Noah’s birth. During his own childhood, when Enoch’s translation was still vivid in the memory of the older generation, Noah must have heard much of that godly man’s life.
But the fact that Noah is thus described does not imply that by his own efforts he had attained unto righteousness. Like all others who are true children of God, he was saved by faith in God (see Heb. 11:7).
11. The earth also was corrupt. The sinful condition of antediluvian man is represented as corrupting the whole earth. Elsewhere the term “corruption” is applied to idolatry, the sin of perverting and depraving the worship of God (Ex. 32:7; Deut. 32:5; Judges 2:19; 2 Chron. 27:2). They practiced evil publicly, flagrantly, as the expression “before God” implies.
12. God looked upon the earth. Conditions on this earth became the subject of God’s special investigation. Inspiration thus assures man that the coming judgment was not an ill-considered and arbitrary act of Deity. This investigation revealed that there no longer existed a distinction between the God-defying Cainites and God-fearing Sethites. With very few exceptions “all flesh” was corrupt.
13. The end of all flesh. Having concluded that sin could be checked by no other means that the annihilation of the race (save for one family), God announced His plan to Noah. The preceding notices of divine intent to destroy this earth (vs. 3, 7) are presumably the record of words God uttered in heavenly council, rather than to any human ear. Here, however, a communication was made directly to Noah. This probably took place 120 years before the Flood, as suggested in v. 3. God wished to give men the opportunity to mend their evil ways, should they so desire, and accordingly commissioned Noah, a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), to give this message of warning. This was in itself a manifestation of mercy, based upon the divine principle of not acting before men have been advised of what to expect in case of continued sin (Amos 3:7).
The earth is filled with violence. God’s introductory words must have been shocking to Noah, but the reason for His fateful decision follows. Instead of filling the earth with a people who would attempt to live according to God’s will, man had “filled the earth with violence.”
I will destroy them with the earth. Note that God did not announce His intention to destroy man “from” or “on” the earth but “with” it. Though the earth as such can suffer no penal destruction, it must share in man’s destruction, because, as his dwelling place and the scene of his criminal acts, it is one with him. This does not mean, of course, the annihilation of our planet, but rather the utter desolation of its surface.
14. Make thee an ark. Provision must be made to save Noah and his family, hence the command to build a ship. The Hebrew word translated “ark” is from an Egyptian term designating large seaworthy ships used for the transport of obelisks, and also processional barks for carrying sacred statues on the Nile.
Gopher wood. The Hebrew word gopher is from the ancient Sumerian giparu, a tree not yet definitely identified. The ancient Egyptians built their big ships of cedar, and therefore commentators have suggested that gopher wood may have been timber from coniferous trees such as cedar or cypress. Their resinous quality would make them ideal for such use. Ellen G. White states that the timber Noah used was cypress (PP 95).
Rooms shalt thou make. The ark was to be divided into cells, literally “nests,” needed especially for the many animals, and to be caulked within and without. The word translated “pitch” is of Babylonian origin, and designates both pitch and bitumen. Since ancient times such materials have been found in Mesopotamia and used for caulking ships (see on ch. 2:12).
15. This is the fashion. The ship was to be built according to exact divine instructions. Its dimensions as given to Noah show the vessel to be of extraordinary size. Had it not been for these detailed instructions from God, Noah, a man of no previous experience in ship construction or sailing, could never have built it. The largest ancient vessel now known was an Egyptian ship up to 130 cubits long and 40 cubits wide. The ark of Noah was almost three times as long. If the cubit of 20.6 in. is meant (cf. Deut. 3:11), the length of the ark would have been 515 ft., its width 86 ft., and its height 52 ft. It has been generally assumed that the ark was in the form of a chest or box rather than that of a ship, but this is nowhere stated in the Sacred Text. Because of the lack of precise information in regard to the form of the ship, it seems futile to compute the exact cubical contents of Noah’s ark. It is clear, however, from the given description, that it was a vessel of formidable dimensions, with ample space for the animals housed within and for a year’s food for all.
16. A window. Certain Hebrew words and the grammatical construction employed in this verse are the occasion of difficulty in ascertaining what Moses meant. The word translated “window,” ṣohar, may mean either “light,” “light opening,” or “roof.” The translation “roof,” as in the RSV, seems to rest on stronger evidence than the translation “window.” The fact that Noah could not see the surface of the earth until the ṣohar was opened (see ch. 8:6) seems to favor this view. Whatever it may mean, light was admitted from the top (see PP 95).
In a cubit shalt thou finish it above. This sentence is difficult to interpret. If the word sohar means a “light opening,” the sentence may refer to a kind of lattice-work one cubit high surrounding the upper part of the ark to admit light. If ṣohar means “roof,” it may have practically the same meaning, namely that there was one cubit between the roof and the upper edge of the walls.
17. I, even I. The repeated and emphatic “I” is a clear indication that the coming catastrophe was a divine visitation and not a natural occurrence.
A flood of waters. The word “flood,” mabbul, is used throughout the OT only for the Flood of Noah, with the possible exception of Ps. 29:10. Mabbul may be derived from an Assyrian root meaning “to destroy.” The Hebrew construction of the phrase “a flood of waters” would permit the reading, “a destruction, [even] waters.” This passage is the first intimation of the means of destruction to be used.
18. I establish my covenant. The first recorded agreement between God and Noah (see on ch. 15:9-17 for the procedure followed in effecting a covenant). By concluding a covenant with Noah, God strengthened that righteous man’s confidence in the surety of the divine watchcare. Whatever might occur, Noah knew that he and his family would be saved.
And thy sons. These promises included even Noah’s unborn sons and their wives, because at the time Noah was still childless, although already 480 years of age (see on ch. 5:32). Not one of Noah’s ancestors had waited so long for offspring, and he may have given up the hope of being blessed with children. On many occasions God prepared His chosen agents for times of crisis by leading them through long periods of disappointment, that they might learn patience and trust in Him. This very experience came to the parents of Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist. The commission to build the ark, then, included indirect assurance that in preserving life, the family line of Noah would not become extinct. The birth of his sons would then be to Noah a sign of the equal certainty of the coming deluge. In faith he went forward, believing “things not seen as yet” (Heb. 11:7).
19. Of every living thing. Animal life, as well as human, was to be preserved through Noah’s faith. Commentators have seen a contradiction between the command to provide for “two of every sort” and the order given later to take seven of certain kinds (ch. 7:2). The first order was meant to inform Noah concerning the provisions that must be made to save the animal world from complete annihilation, and a pair of each would be essential for reproduction. That is all God intended on this occasion.
21. Food. Food for Noah’s family and fodder for the animals would have to be gathered in sufficient quantity to last for more than a year. It had to be not only harvested but stored away in the ark. The talent of a wise organizer was needed to accomplish all this work in an efficient way. Noah had to be not only a shipbuilder and a preacher but a farmer and provider as well.
22. Thus did Noah. The record of instruction given Noah closes with the observation that he had done everything God had asked him to do. He showed no hesitancy in obeying God. His association with relatives, who had become like the cursed Cainites, in no way influenced him. His education, at the hands of devout parents and grandparents, had prepared Noah for implicit faith in God and obedience to His instructions.
This short verse covers 120 years of faithful service. Some of those who believed Noah’s message, like his grandfather Methuselah, died before the dread event took place. He lived out the message he preached, and those who knew him best, his own family, could not avoid his holy influence. His sons not only believed what he preached but actively participated in preparations for that awful event foretold before their birth.
Noah’s experience sets a noble example for Christians who know they are living in the time of the end and are preparing themselves for translation. Their greatest missionary work is to be done in the home.
1. Come thou. For 120 years God has continued long-suffering beyond measure (1 Peter 3:20), and Noah’s life and labor had “condemned the world” (Heb. 11:7). But human beings carelessly and indifferently hastened onward to their doom. In saving one family and destroying all others God was not arbitrary. Noah alone had qualified for admission to the new earth that was to follow purification of the earth by water.
2. Of every clean beast. Instruction to take more clean than unclean animals with him into the ark presupposes that Noah knew how to distinguish between the two classes. It is clear that this distinction did not originate with Moses. It reached back to the very earliest times, to divine instructions concerning sacrifices—for which only clean animals might be used (see ch. 8:20).
Since ancient times the number of clean animals to be taken into the ark has been the subject of dispute among Bible translators and commentators. The Hebrew text, reading literally, “Thou shalt take to thee seven seven, a male with his female,” can be understood as meaning “seven pairs” or “seven of each kind” of animal. The LXX, Vulgate, and many ancient and modern scholars favor the translation “seven pairs,” whereas certain church Fathers, the Reformers, and in fact some scholars in all ages, have expressed themselves in favor of “seven individuals.” Whatever the exact explanation may be, it is obvious that more clean animals were to find room in the ark than unclean. Foreseeing the need for emergency food after the Flood had destroyed all vegetation, God knew man would need to eat, temporarily, the flesh of clean animals. Furthermore, they were needed for sacrificial purposes. For these obvious reasons God made provision to preserve enough clean animals that they might not become extinct. That in His first instructions to Noah (ch. 6:19) God made no distinction between clean and unclean animals can be explained by the fact that at that time, 120 years before the Flood, such minute instructions were not necessary (see on v. 9).
5. All that the Lord commanded him. As Noah had fulfilled all commands of God during the previous 120 years (see ch. 6:22), so he acted in like manner during the last hours before the Flood came. How much he must have suffered as he saw the multitude of human beings with whom he had lived for six centuries, indifferently and carelessly drifting to their doom! Knowing that all of them were to die at the end of one week, and seeing them carouse as if nothing would happen (Matt. 24:37-39), he must have redoubled his final efforts to warn and invite them to enter the ark with him. But all was to no avail.
7. Noah went in. That Noah did not wait until the last day prior to the Flood to enter the ark is obvious from a comparison of vs. 7 and 10. Moved with fear and impelled by faith, Noah and his family lost no time in obeying the command to enter the ship of refuge. Peter tells us that only eight persons were saved from the Flood (1 Peter 3:20); whence it is obvious that Noah and his three sons each had but one wife. Polygamy, common among the Cainites, was not yet practiced by the followers of the true God.
9. There went in two and two. In obedience to a mysterious impulse, animals of all kinds moved into the ark. Nothing less than divine power could have effected such a timely and orderly entrance into the huge vessel. What a vivid warning this must have been for the ungodly who witnessed it! Here were domesticated and wild beasts, creeping and flying animals, all making their way into the ark, apparently of their own volition. What a contrast—dumb brutes obedient to their Creator, and intelligent beings refusing to heed His warning call of mercy! If anything could do so, this should have made an impression upon the sinners; but they had hardened their hearts so long that even this miracle left them unimpressed.
11. Six hundredth year. The first of many exact chronological statements in the OT. So careful a statement as to the exact day, month, and year of the Flood stands in sharp contrast to the legendary accounts of ancient pagan peoples concerning the activity of their gods in relation to this world.
The fountains of the great deep. This earth, which had never before experienced rain (see on Gen. 2:6), was suddenly flooded by huge masses of water. A heavy and incessant rain set in. Simultaneously the crust of the earth was broken open, with the result that masses of water from beneath the surface of the earth gushed forth to work havoc and completely to inundate the once-dry land.
16. The Lord shut him in. This statement emphasizes the miraculous nature of events during the week immediately preceding the Flood. This divine act signified also that the time of grace for the fallen race had reached its end. As in the days of Noah the door of mercy closed a short time prior to the day of God’s visitation, so in these last days God’s people are to be warned, “Shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself” (Isa. 26:20, 21; Matt. 24:37-39; 2 Peter 3:6, 7).
17. The waters increased. The tremendous extent and intensity of the Flood is well expressed by a graphic series of verbs and adverbs: the waters “increased” (v. 17), “prevailed” and “increased greatly” (v. 18), “prevailed exceedingly” (v. 19), and even “prevailed” 15 cubits (about 26 ft.) above the mountains (v. 20). The description is simple, majestic, and vivid. An immeasurable volume of water covered the whole earth. The universal extent of the Flood could hardly have been expressed in more forceful words than these.
This description renders utterly foolish and impossible the view set forth by some that the Flood was a local affair in the Mesopotamian valley. Deposits of silt uncovered by archeologists at Ur of the Chaldees, for example, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to answer to the Genesis account of the Deluge (PP 107, 108).
Everywhere over the surface of the earth we find fossil remains of plants and animals obviously deposited by water. These deposits extend, in certain localities, to depths of at least three miles, but the average depth is somewhat over half a mile. The universal distribution of these remains and the depth of their burial testify unmistakably to both the worldwide extent and the terrific violence of the Noachian Deluge.
The universality of this catastrophe is also attested by the Flood legends preserved among the people of nearly every race on the face of the earth. Most complete among these accounts is that of the ancient Babylonians, who settled in close proximity to the place where the ark rested after the Flood and whence the human race again began to spread abroad. The Epic of Gilgamesh bears many conclusive similarities to that of Genesis, and yet differs from it in such a way as to prove it a corrupted version of the same story. A comparison of the two accounts presents impressive evidence of the inspiration of the Genesis narrative.
The ark is mentioned twice in vs. 17 and 18 as being “borne” or “lifted up.” That it “went” with safety “upon the face of the waters” provides all future generations with assurance of God’s ability to save those who trust and obey Him. The very elements loosed to destroy the wicked, safely bore up the faithful family of Noah. God is never at a loss for means to save His own. At the same time it is His will that man should exercise to the full the intelligence and strength God has given him. God miraculously preserved the ark, but He had Noah build it.
21. All flesh died. The word “all” is thrice used, and accompanied by a detailed list of the different forms of life, “fowl,” “cattle,” “beasts,” “creeping things,” and “man.” Now, to make it still more emphatic, “every” is used twice.
24. The waters prevailed. That the 150 days include the 40 days of vs. 4, 12, 17, and so must be counted from the beginning of that period, is seen from v. 11, and ch. 8:4, where it is said that the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the 7th month, exactly 5 months after the beginning of the rain. The reckoning is in terms of 30-day months.
1. God remembered Noah. This verse does not imply that God had forgotten Noah for a time. It is an expression indicating divine solicitude and grace. A touching indication of the tenderness of God toward His creatures is found in the statement that God also remembered, with Noah, all other living things. He who proclaimed that although five sparrows are “sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God” (Luke 12:6, 7; cf. Matt. 10:29-31; 6:26), will remember His faithful children, who “are of more value than many sparrows.”
4. Ararat. All Bible expositors agree that the mountainous land of Armenia is meant, though it is uncertain just what part of the Ararat range is indicated. Rumors to the effect that the remains of Noah’s ark have been discovered have not yet been substantiated. The traditional location, modern Mt. Ararat, has two peaks, one 16,945 ft., the other 12,287 ft. high. Among the Persians these twin peaks are known as Koh-i-nuh, “the mountain of Noah.” Here was an ideal location for the ark to rest while the waters subsided, and from which the survivors of the Flood might spread to every land (see on ch. 7:24).
5. The waters decreased. The waters diminished gradually for two and one-half months after the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
7. He sent forth a raven. Forty days after the appearance of the mountaintops, Noah became anxious to know the extent to which the waters had dried up, and whether it was safe for him to leave the ark. As the waters had abated, the ark had already found safety from the tempests in a sheltered spot high in the mountains. From such a position it was difficult to ascertain the extent to which the waters had receded in the lower valleys. A raven was therefore dispatched, that Noah might observe from its behavior something of the condition of the earth. Not able to find a resting place, the raven flew about over the surface of the waters, returning from time to time to the ark (PP 105).
8. He sent forth a dove. Although it is not stated how long Noah waited before making another trial, the expression “and he stayed yet other seven days” (v. 10) indicates that the first period of waiting had also been of the same duration. A week later the dove remained away all day, but returned in the evening with an olive leaf apparently from a tree that had survived the flood. In Hebrew the expression “pluckt off” clearly indicates that the leaf had not been found floating upon the surface of the water. Noah recognized the olive leaf as evidence that the earth must be nearly dry, and that he might soon leave the ark. A week later the dove did not return, evidence that conditions were sufficiently normal to permit it to remain outside the ark. How joyous must Noah’s feelings have been!
13. The covering of the ark. An additional period of waiting is indicated, after which Noah felt the time had come to investigate for himself. Inasmuch as little could be seen through the lattice openings below the roof of the ark, he removed a portion of the roof. The word “covering,” mikseh, is used in the OT to designate the roof of the tabernacle (Ex. 26:14), and also slip covers for the furniture of the sanctuary while it was being transported (Num. 4:10-12). Since these coverings were made of skins, it is possible that the covering of the ark may have been also (see on ch. 6:16).
14. In the second month. To Noah the ground appeared sufficiently dry. But God had closed the door of the ark, and Noah awaited God’s instruction as to when he was to leave it. Altogether he waited 57 days longer before the waters were completely dried up and God could give the desired permission.
If we assume a 30-day month throughout (see on ch. 7:24), a ship’s log for the ark during the Flood would read as follows:
| Month | Day | Year |
Noah enters the ark. 7:4, |
2 |
10 |
600 |
Beginning of the Flood. 7:11. ........................... |
2 |
17 |
600 |
Rain and prevailing wa- ters (first 40 days of |
3 |
27 |
600 |
“Waters prevailed” (110 additional days). 7:24. to................................ |
7 |
17 |
600 |
The ark rests on the mountains of Ararat. 8:4. ............................. |
7 |
17 |
600 |
The mountains seen. 8:5.... | 10 | 1 | 600 |
The raven released (40 days later). 8:6. ............ |
11 |
11 |
600 |
The dove released (first |
11 |
18 |
600 |
The dove released (sec- ond time). 8:10. ........... |
11 |
25 |
600 |
The dove released (third time). 8:12. .................. |
12 |
2 |
600 |
Covering of the ark re- moved; waters dried. 8:13. ........................... |
1 |
1 |
601 |
Noah leaves the ark. 8:14-16........................ |
2 |
27 |
601 |
A period of exactly five months elapsed from the beginning of the Flood to the time the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat (ch. 7:11; 8:4). This is also given as 150 days (ch. 7:24), thus indicating that the 5 months contained 30 days each. It is uncertain, however, whether the year of Noah’s time was lunar or solar, and whether it began in the spring or in the autumn.
The ark is proof of the goodness of God and the obedient faith of Noah. The ark was a refuge in time of peril, a home for the homeless, and a temple where the godly family of Noah worshiped. It bore them safely from the old world to the new, from an environment of vice and sin to an earth purified from sin. The ark was God’s appointed place of salvation, and outside of it there was no safety. And as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be when this present age is brought to an abrupt close at the coming of the Son of man (see Matt. 24:37). Those who wish to be saved must avail themselves of the provision God has made for their salvation.
16. Go forth. Noah had learned to trust in God and to wait patiently during his 120 years of preaching and building the ark. That long period of active labor was followed by more than a year in the ark. During the first weeks and months he had experienced incessant rain, raging tempest, and tremendous upheavals of the earth, which seemed ready to destroy his frail bark. Later, as the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat, there began a tedious time of waiting, which lasted for more than seven months. How often Noah might have felt that God had forgotten the lonely ark and its inmates on that high mountaintop. Happy twin virtues—faith and patience! With what eager joy Noah must have listened once more to the voice of God, bidding him go forth.
17. That they may breed abundantly. This statement has been viewed by some commentators as implying that God had restrained the reproductive power of the animals during the year they spent in the cramped quarters of the ark. Now the original blessing upon animals to multiply and fill the earth (ch. 1:22) is repeated.
18. Noah went forth. As an angel descended from heaven and swung open the door that had been closed a year earlier by similar means, Noah and his family came forth. The animals followed Noah’s example, leaving the ark in orderly fashion, each after its own kind. This instinct to associate with other members of their own kind is generally characteristic of the animal world to the present day.
20. Noah builded an altar. Noah’s first act upon leaving the ark was one of worship. The sacrifices offered by Noah were not only an expression of gratitude for preservation but also a new pledge of his faith in the Saviour—typified by every sacrificial animal. In the offering “of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl” Noah gave evidence both of gratitude and of generosity. Although this passage is the first one in Scripture to mention the building of an altar, it should not be thought that altars were not in use prior to the Flood. The word “burnt offerings,” ‘oloth, is not the same as that used to describe Abel’s sacrifice. It is derived from a verb meaning “to rise up,” and suggests, not the elevation of the gift upon the altar, but the ascent of the smoke of the burnt offering toward heaven (see Judges 13:20; 20:40; Jer. 48:15; Amos 4:10).
21. The Lord smelled a sweet savour. God’s satisfaction with Noah’s conduct and His acceptance of Noah’s gift are presented in very human language. The divine response to Noah’s devoted worship was a resolve that the earth would never again be destroyed by a flood. This promise was not communicated to Noah until a little later (see ch. 9:8-17). The words “I will not again curse the ground” did not remove the curse of ch. 3:17. They simply refer to the fact that a universal catastrophe such as the Deluge would not overtake the human race again. Localized floods were not included.
The imagination of man’s heart. Some commentators have seen a contradiction between this verse and ch. 6:5-7. God had ordained the Flood because “every imagination of the thoughts” of man’s heart was “only evil continually,” and here, for the very same reason, He promised never to send another. It must be that in the first case “imagination” refers to a fixed pattern of thought as translated into action (ch. 6:5), and that here it refers to man’s inherent tendencies. The KJV marginal reading, “though,” instead of “for,” is probably correct.
22. While the earth remaineth. Man’s ordinary seasonal pursuits had been completely and universally interrupted by the Flood. God now assured Noah that not only would there never be another flood but also no other comparable interruption of the seasonal cycle would occur. Seasons had been ordained at creation (Gen. 1:14); these were to continue.
The most remarkable account of the Deluge outside of the Bible occurs in the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Although that section of the epic which deals with the Flood exhibits surprising similarities to the Genesis record, differences between the two accounts constitute convincing evidence of the inspiration and accuracy of the Biblical record. Polytheism and other heathen religious ideas give the Epic of Gilgamesh a definitely pagan flavor. Although similar Flood stories persist today among all branches of the human race, it is only natural to find the Babylonian account more nearly accurate than the others because of the proximity of Babylon to the mountains of Ararat. For further information on the Epic of Gilgamesh, see “Archeology and the Recovery of Ancient History,” pp. 115-117.
1. God blessed Noah and his sons. Noah and his family received a blessing that was similar to the one pronounced upon Adam and Eve after their creation (ch. 1:28). As Adam had been the progenitor of all members of the human race, Noah became the progenitor of all human beings after the Flood. The blessing consisted in both instances of a divine commission to “be fruitful” and to fill the earth. One part of the previous blessing, however, was absent from the new one, namely, the charge to “subdue it,” the earth. This omission doubtless reflects the fact that the world dominion assigned to man at the time of creation had been forfeited by sin. Sin had disturbed the relationship that originally existed between man and the animals, and they were, to a certain extent at least, released from subjection to him.
2. The fear of you. Inasmuch as sin with its consequences had loosened the bond of voluntary subjection on the part of the animals to the will of man, it was only by force that henceforth he could rule over them, through that “fear” which God now instilled in the animal creation. Nature had become estranged from man.
The fear that all land, air, and water animals were to have, would not exclude their occasional rebellion against man’s dominion over them. They would sometimes rise and destroy man. Indeed, God used them, at times, to administer divine justice (see Ex. 8:6, 17, 24; 2 Kings 2:24). However, the normal condition of the lower creatures was to become one of instinctive dread of man, which causes them rather to avoid him than to seek his presence. It is a fact that animals retreat wherever human civilization advances. Even ferocious wild beasts, unless provoked, usually avoid man and flee from him rather than attack him.
Into your hand are they delivered. This divine pronouncement has found its fulfillment in the domestication of certain animals whose help man needs, in the taming of wild animals by man’s superior will power, and in the successful reduction to impotency of harmful creatures by his inventiveness and ingenuity.
3. Meat for you. Not that man then first began to eat animal flesh, but only that God for the first time authorized, or rather allowed, him to do what the Flood had made a necessity. The wicked antediluvians were flesh eaters (CH 109). But it was not the original will of the Creator that His creatures should consume one another. He had given man plants for food (ch. 1:29). With the temporary destruction of all plant life during the Flood and the exhaustion of the food supplies that were taken into the ark, an emergency arose that God met by giving permission to eat the flesh of animals. Furthermore, the eating of flesh food would shorten men’s sinful lives (CD 373).
This permission did not imply an unrestrained and unlimited eating of every kind of animal. The phrase, “moving thing that liveth,” clearly excludes the eating of carcasses of animals that had died or been killed by other beasts, which the Mosaic law later specifically forbade (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 22:8). Though the distinction between clean and unclean animals in regard to food is not made here, it does not follow that it was unknown to Noah. That Noah was acquainted with this distinction is clear from the previous command to bring more clean than unclean beasts into the ark (Gen. 7:2), and by the fact that he offered only clean animals as his burnt offering (ch. 8:20).
This distinction must have been known to early man so well that it was not necessary for God to draw Noah’s special attention to it. It was only when this distinction had been lost through the centuries of man’s estrangement from God that new and written directives were issued regarding clean and unclean animals (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14). The immutability of God’s character (James 1:17) precludes the possibility of construing this passage as permission to slaughter and eat all creatures. Animals that were unclean for one purpose could not have been clean for another.
Even as the green herb. This implies the newness of the permission to eat flesh food, in addition to the vegetables and fruits that had originally been destined to be man’s food. Not only was the temporary absence of plant life, as a result of the Flood, the reason for God’s permission to man to supplement his vegetarian diet with meat, but probably also the fact that the Flood had so thoroughly changed this earth’s outward form and diminished its fertility that in some lands, such as the far north, it would not produce sufficient vegetarian food to sustain the human race.
4. Flesh with the life thereof. The prohibition applies to the eating of flesh with blood in it, whether of living animals, as had been the barbarous custom of some pagan tribes in the past, or of slaughtered animals from which the blood had not been properly drained. This prohibition was, among other things, a safeguard against cruelty and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals, in which blood, as the bearer of life, was held sacred. God foresaw that man, easily falling victim to superstitious beliefs, would think that, in partaking of the life-bearing fluid of animals, his own life power would be either strengthened or prolonged. For these and probably other reasons not now clear to us, the eating of flesh with the blood in it was irrevocably prohibited. The apostles considered this prohibition still binding in the Christian Era. They especially drew the attention of Gentile Christian believers to it, because these new believers, before their conversion, had been accustomed to the eating of flesh with blood in it (Acts 15:20, 29).
“Life,” nephesh (see on Gen. 2:7). To translate it “soul,” as some have done, obscures the true meaning (see Lev. 17:11). Blood is vital to life. If the circulation of blood to any part of the body is cut off, that part dies. A complete loss of blood inevitably brings death. This being true, the Hebrew word nephesh, standing parallel to “blood” in this text, should be rendered “life,” as in the KJV.
5. Your blood of your lives. The two possessive pronouns “your” emphasize the value of man’s life, nephesh, in the sight of Heaven. God would personally concern Himself with avenging the shedding of human blood, as is implied by the words, “will I require,” literally, “search after,” with a view to punishment.
At the hand of every beast. The life of man was made secure against animals as well as against other men by a solemn proclamation of the sanctity of human life. The statute that a beast which slew a man should be destroyed was later incorporated into the Mosaic code (Ex. 21:28-32). This command was not given by way of punishing the murderous beast, which is not under moral law and so cannot sin, but for the safety of men.
At the hand of man. This warning is directed against suicide and homicide. God requires the man who takes his own life as well as the one who takes the life of his fellow man to give an account of his act. The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is so wide in its implications that every kind of shortening or taking of life is prohibited. Man cannot give life and has therefore no right to take it, unless required to do so by a divine command. No one in possession of his mental and moral faculties, and thus responsible for his acts, can escape God’s retribution, not even the man who lays hand on himself. At the resurrection every individual will have to appear before the judgment seat of God to receive his reward (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10).
6. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood. God would avenge or inflict punishment for every murder, not directly, however, as He did in the case of Cain, but indirectly, by placing in the hand of man judicial power. The word “sheddeth” implies willful murder and not an accidental taking of life, manslaughter, for which the law made other provisions than those mentioned here (Num. 35:11). The divine injunction endows temporal government with judicial power, and places in its hand the sword. God took care to erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil, and thus laid the foundation for an orderly civil development of humanity.
9. I establish my covenant. To give Noah and his sons a firm assurance of the prosperous continuance of the human race, God established a covenant with them and their descendants and confirmed it with a visible sign. The covenant contemplated all subsequent posterity in its provisions, and, along with the human family, the entire animal creation.
10. All that go out of the ark. This passage does not imply, as some expositors have explained it, that certain animals had survived the Flood without having been in the ark, and that therefore there was only a partial inundation of the earth. Inasmuch as this view squarely contradicts clear statements that all land and air animals that had not found a haven of refuge in the ark had been destroyed (chs. 6:17; 7:4, 21-23), another explanation must be found. The preposition “to,” in the phrase “to every beast,” is here more appropriately rendered “of” or “with regard to” (see ch. 20:13, “of me”). The RSV, following the LXX, renders it thus: “Every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.”
11. Neither shall all flesh be cut off. This “covenant” contained but one provision and assumed the form of a divine promise. Regions might be devastated and animals and men swept away by the hundreds or thousands, but never again would there be a universal destruction of the earth by a flood. However, this promise does not imply that God is bound never to destroy the world again by another means than water. His declared plan to put an end to all wickedness at the close of this world’s history by a great destructive fire (2 Peter 3:7, 10, 11; Rev. 20:9; etc.) in no way contradicts the promise.
12. This is the token. This token God deemed necessary in order to give His creatures faith in His promises, it being an instance of His condescension to the weakness of man. Man looks for signs (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 1:22), and God in His mercy and goodness has provided them, within limits, although He wants His followers to retain their faith even when no signs guide them, and to believe without visible evidence (John 20:29).
13. I do set my bow. The establishment of the rainbow as a covenant sign of the promise that there would never be another flood, presupposes that it appeared then for the first time in the clouds of heaven. This is one more indication that no rain had fallen before the Flood. The rainbow is produced by the refraction and reflection of the sun’s light through the ball-shaped raindrops on which the rays fall.
15. I will remember my covenant. The rainbow, a natural physical phenomenon, was a fitting symbol of God’s promise never to destroy the earth again by a flood. Inasmuch as the climatic conditions of the earth would be completely different after the Flood, and rains would in most parts of the world take the place of the former beneficent dew to moisten the soil, something was needed to quiet men’s fears each time rain began to fall. The spiritual mind can see in natural phenomena God’s revelations of Himself (see Rom. 1:20). Thus the rainbow is evidence to the believer that the rain will bring blessing and not universal destruction.
John saw in vision a rainbow surrounding the throne of God (Rev. 4:3). Man looks on the bow to recall the promise of God, but God Himself looks upon it to remember and fulfill His promise. In the bow man’s faith and trust meet God’s faithfulness and immutability.
The beams of holy light streaming forth from the Sun of Righteousness (Mal. 4:2), as seen by the eye of faith through the prism of life’s experiences, reveal the beauty of the righteous character of Jesus Christ. The eternal covenant between Father and Son (Zech. 6:13) assures to every humble, faithful son and daughter of God the privilege of beholding in Jesus the One altogether lovely, and, beholding Him, of being changed into His very likeness.
17. This is the token. This covenant between God and Noah brought to a conclusion the events connected with the greatest catastrophe this earth has ever experienced. The earth, once beautiful and perfect, offered a picture of utter desolation as far as the eye could reach. Man had received a lesson concerning the awful results of sin. The unfallen worlds had seen the fearful end to which man comes when he follows the bidding of Satan.
A new beginning was to be made. Inasmuch as only faithful and obedient members of the antediluvian human family had survived the Flood, there was reason to hope that the future would present a happier picture than the past. After having been saved by God’s grace from the greatest imaginable cataclysm, the descendants of Noah might be expected to apply for all future ages the lessons learned from the Flood.
18. The sons of Noah. His three sons, mentioned repeatedly in previous passages (chs. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13), are again mentioned as the heads of the nations into which the human family developed. Their names are explained in connection with the table of nations, ch. 10.
Ham is the father of Canaan. Ham’s son Canaan is mentioned here in prospective allusion to what follows. Furthermore, it must have been the purpose of Moses to direct the attention of the Hebrews of his time to the unsavory event described in the next verses, in order that they might understand better why the Canaanites, whom they soon would meet, were so deeply degraded and morally corrupt. The root of their depravity was found in their early ancestor Ham, “the father of Canaan.”
19. Of them was the whole earth overspread. This passage declares in terse but unmistakable words that all later inhabitants of this globe are descendants of Noah’s three sons. Even if we are not able to trace every nation and tribe back to one of the heads of families enumerated in the following chapter, this text states emphatically that the whole earth was populated by Noah’s descendants. The view that certain races had been spared by the Flood in remote regions of this world, and had no direct relationship with Noah’s sons, is un-Scriptural.
20. Noah began to be an husbandman. The text does not necessarily imply that Noah had not been a husbandman before the Flood, but that he began the new era as, literally, “man of the ground.” Although Noah had received license to slaughter animals and eat their meat, he felt that it was nevertheless necessary at once to till the ground and obtain food from it.
He planted a vineyard. The statement does not imply that Noah planted nothing else than a vineyard. The vineyard is mentioned to explain the following events, but not to exclude his tilling the ground for other purposes. Armenia, the country in which the ark settled down, was, in antiquity, known as a country of vineyards, as the Greek soldier-historian Xenophon testifies. The cultivation of the vine was common to the whole ancient Near East, and can be traced back to the earliest times.
Noah did nothing wrong in planting a vineyard. The vine is one of the noble plants of God’s creation. Christ used it to illustrate His relationship to the church (John 15), and honored its fruit by drinking of it the last night of His earthly ministry (Matt. 26:27-29). Grape juice is highly beneficial to the human body, as long as it is unfermented.
21. Wine. Heb. yayin, the juice of the grape. In most if not all instances the Scripture context indicates a fermented—and therefore intoxicating—drink. As a result of Noah’s use of this beverage he became “drunken.” Since drunkenness had been one of the sins of the antediluvian era, we must assume that Noah was acquainted with the evils of drinking alcoholic beverages. The record of Noah’s sin testifies to the impartiality of the Scriptures, which record the faults of great men as well as their virtues.
Neither age nor previous spiritual victories are a guarantee against defeat in the hour of temptation. Who would have thought that a man who had walked with God for centuries, and had withstood the temptations of multitudes, should fall alone? One heedless hour may stain the purest life and undo much of the good that has been done in the course of years.
He was uncovered. “Wine is a mocker” (Prov. 20:1), and may deceive the wisest of men if they are not watchful. Drunkenness deforms and degrades the temple of the Holy Spirit, which we are, weakens moral principle and thus exposes a man to countless evils. He loses control both of physical and of mental faculties. Noah’s intemperance brought shame to a respectable old man, and subjected one who was wise and good to derision and scorn.
22. The nakedness of his father. That Ham is again called the father of Canaan seems to imply that both father and son had similar unholy inclinations that revealed themselves, not only in the incident described here, but later in the religious practices of a whole nation. Furthermore, it shows that the event took place some time after the Flood, when Canaan, the fourth son of Ham (ch. 10:6), was already born. The sin of Ham was not an unintentional transgression. He may have seen his father’s shameful condition accidentally, but instead of being filled with sorrow over his father’s folly, he rejoiced in what he saw and found delight in publishing it.
23. Shem and Japheth took a garment. Ham’s two older brothers did not share his perverted feelings. Adam also had had two well-disciplined sons, Abel and Seth, and one child of sin, Cain. Although all had received the same parental love and training, sin manifested itself much more markedly in one than in the others. Now the same spirit of depravity breaks forth in one of Noah’s children, while the older sons, reared in the same home and under the same conditions as Ham, show an admirable spirit of decency and self-control. As the evil trends of criminal Cain were perpetuated in his descendants, Ham’s degraded nature revealed itself further in his offspring.
24. Noah awoke. When Noah regained consciousness and reason he learned of what had happened during his sleep, probably by making inquiry as to the reason for the garment covering him. His “younger son,” literally, “his son, the little one,” meaning “the youngest son,” refers to Ham (see on ch. 5:32).
25. Cursed be Canaan. The curse being pronounced on Canaan, Ham’s fourth son, rather than on the perpetrator of the crime himself, has been taken by many commentators as evidence that Canaan had really been the culprit and not Ham, and that he is meant in v. 24 as the youngest member of the Noachic family. The church Father Origen mentions the tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of his grandfather, and told it to his father. It is not impossible that Canaan had shared in his father’s evil deed.
Noah’s curse does not seem to have been pronounced resentment, but rather as a prophecy. The prophecy does not fix Canaan in particular or Ham’s sons in general in the bonds of an iron destiny. It is merely a prediction of what God foresaw and announced through Noah. Presumably Canaan already walked in the sins of his father, and those sins became such a strong feature in the national character of Canaan’s descendants that God later ordered their destruction.
A servant of servants. Shem has subdued Japheth, and Japheth has subdued Shem, but Ham has never subdued either.
26. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. In contrast with the curse, the blessings upon Shem and Japheth are introduced with a fresh “And he said.” After the statement of each blessing comes the announcement of Canaan’s servitude, like a minor refrain. Instead of wishing good to Shem, Noah praises the God of Shem, namely, Jehovah, as Moses did in the case of Gad Deut. 33:20). By having Jehovah as his God, Shem would be the recipient and heir of all the blessings of salvation that Jehovah bestows upon His faithful ones.
27. God shall enlarge Japheth. By a play on Japheth’s name, Noah sums up his blessing for this son in the word “enlarge,” pathach. By this, Noah indicated the remarkable dispersion and prosperity of the Japhethic nations.
He shall dwell in the tents of Shem. The personal pronoun “he” refers to Japheth and not to God, although some ancient and modern Bible commentators have understood it thus. The meaning of the utterance may have been twofold, inasmuch as Japheth’s descendants in the course of time took away many of the Shemite lands, and dwelt in them, and because the Japhethites were to participate in the saving blessings of the Shemites. When the gospel was preached in Greek, a Japhethic language, Shem’s descendant Israel, though subdued by Japhethic Rome, became the spiritual conqueror of the Japhethites and thus, figuratively, received them into his tents. All who are saved are a part of spiritual Israel and go into the holy city through gates bearing the names of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gal. 3:29; Rev. 21:12).
Prophecies such as this do not determine the fate of individuals within the group concerned, either for salvation or for condemnation. The Canaanite Rahab and the Jebusite Araunah were received into the fellowship of God’s chosen people, and the Canaanite woman was aided by the Lord because of her faith (Matt. 1:5; 2 Sam. 24:18; Matt. 15:22-28). But the hardened Pharisees and scribes had woes pronounced upon them, and Israel was rejected because of unbelief (Matt. 23:13; Rom. 11:17-20).
29. All the days of Noah. The history of Noah ends with a well-known formula from ch. 5, suggesting that the stories contained in chs. 6-9 belong to Noah’s history. Although Noah was a righteous man and walked with God, he did not attain to the spiritual stature of his great-grandfather Enoch. Having witnessed the growth and spread of a new generation and seen how rapidly it followed the wicked inclinations of its evil heart, he died.
1. These are the generations. The authenticity of Gen. 10 has been challenged by Bible critics, who brand it either a late document based on faulty information or perhaps a sheer invention. Recent discoveries, however, attest its validity. Without Gen. 10 our knowledge of the origin and interrelationship of the various races would be far less complete than it is. This chapter confirms the words of Paul at Athens, that God “hath made of one blood all nations” (Acts 17:26).
The sons of Noah. The expression, “These are the generations,” appears frequently in Genesis (see Gen 6:9; 11:10; 25:12, 19; etc.), usually as a title for genealogical information. Noah’s sons are not listed according to age, but according to their relative importance to the Hebrews (see on ch. 5:32). All three sons were born prior to the Flood. Shem means “name” or “fame,” Ham, “warmth,” and Japheth, either “beauty” or “expansion.” The latter meaning for Japheth seems preferable in view of the blessing pronounced upon him by his father (see ch. 9:27). These names probably reflect the feelings of Noah when they were born. The birth of Shem assured Noah of “fame”; there was a particularly “warm” place in his heart for Ham; in Japheth he saw the growth of his family. The names also suggest prophetic foresight. Shem was famed as progenitor of Abraham and thus of the Messiah; Ham’s nature was hot, unbridled, and sensual; Japheth’s descendants are dispersed over several continents. But it is not alone in the names Noah gave his sons that the spirit of inspiration was revealed; it is reflected, as well, in the blessings and the curse pronounced over them (see ch. 9:25-27). The name of Ham appears often as a Jewish name today, in the form of Chaim.
Unto them were sons born. The marked blessing of God upon the survivors of the Flood resulted in the rapid multiplication of the human race (see ch. 9:1; 10:32). The sequence in which the names of Noah’s sons are considered is in harmony with a Hebrew literary device known as “inverted parallelism.” After giving their names in the customary order, “Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” Moses lists the descendants of Japheth first and those of Shem last. Another instance of this device occurs in Matt. 25:2-4.
2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer. Gomer was the ancestor of a people known in Assyrian inscriptions as Gamir or Gimirrai. They are the Cimmerians of ancient Greek literature, and belong to the Indo-European family of nations. According to the Greek author Homer, the Cimmerians lived in Northern Europe. They appeared in the northern provinces of the Assyrian Empire at the time of Sargon II, during the 8th century b.c. They invaded ancient Armenia, but were pushed westward by the Assyrians. An old Assyrian letter comments that none of their interpreters knew the language of the people of Gomer. The Cimmerians overthrew, in turn, the Phrygian and Lydian kingdoms of Asia Minor, but were gradually absorbed by the peoples of Anatolia. Poets of the time speak of the terror inspired in men’s hearts by the Cimmerians. In testimony of their power, a great part of Anatolia once bore the name Gomer. The ancients spoke of the “Cimmerian Bosporos,” and the Armenians still call part of their country Gamir. It is thought that the Crimea bears their name to the present day.
Magog. The identification of this name is difficult. In Eze. 38, 39 Gog, a king of Magog, appears as a cruel enemy of God’s people. From him may have come the barbaric tribe of Gagaia named in a letter from a 15th-century Babylonian king to an Egyptian Pharaoh. This tribe is assumed to have lived somewhere north of the Black Sea, probably in proximity to the descendants of Gomer, a brother of Magog.
Madai. The Medes, or Madai, appear for the first time in Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century b.c. as a people who lived on the high Iranian plateau to the east of Assyria. After playing a minor role in the history of the ancient world, they appear suddenly in the 7th century b.c. as a powerful nation under King Cyaxares, when in conjunction with the Babylonians they overthrew the Assyrian Empire. When the two allies divided up the shattered empire, the Medes received the northern provinces up to the river Halys in Asia Minor, governing their vast domain from Ecbatana, the Biblical Achmetha (see Ezra 6:2). Cyaxares’ son Astyages was defeated and deposed by the Persian ruler Cyrus, who consolidated the kingdoms of Media and Persia and then overthrew Babylon. For the first time in history world supremacy thus fell into the hands of an Indo-European race.
Javan. The Greeks, or Ionians, descended from Javan. The early Ionians are first mentioned in Hittite records as the inhabitants of the western coastal regions of Asia Minor. This was in the middle of the second millennium b.c., about the time Moses wrote Genesis. In Assyrian inscriptions they are called Jamnai.
Tubal. The Tibarenians of Herodotus and the Tabalaeans of Assyrian cuneiform sources are to be identified with the descendants of Tubal. Tubal is mentioned in inscriptions of the 12th century b.c. as being allied with Muski (Meshech) and Kaski in an attempt to conquer northeastern Mesopotamia. Shalmaneser III refers to Tabal as a country for the first time in the 9th century b.c., whereas inscriptions a century later locate the Tabalaeans as settlers in the Anti-Taurus Mountains of southern Cappadocia. They were later pushed into Armenia, where Greek authors of the classical period came in contact with them.
Meshech. Probably ancestor of the Moschoi of Greek classical writers, the Mushku of Assyrian inscriptions. These inscriptions represent Tabal and Mushku as allies, as in Eze. 38. The Mushku appear in the northern part of Mesopotamia for the first time during the reign of Tiglath-pileser I, about 1100 b.c. A little later they settled in Phrygia, and from thence, under their king Mita, made war on Sargon II, in the 8th century. In his struggle against the Assyrians the last king of Carchemish tried in vain to get help from Mita, king of Meshech. After ruling over northern Anatolia for a time the Mushku lost it, first to the Cimmerians and then to the Lydians.
Tiras. Probably ancestor of the Tursēnoi. This people, named after Tiras, lived on the west coast of Asia Minor, where they were notorious as pirates. Related probably to the Italian Tyrsenians, they appear in Egyptian inscriptions of the late 13th century b.c. under the name Turusha. They played a leading role among the migrating coastal peoples of the pre-Hellenic period.
3. The sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz. First son of Gomer, son of Japheth, Ashkenaz was ancestor of the Indo-European people, the Ashkuza, who lived southeast of Lake Urmiah in the time of Esarhaddon, 7th century b.c. The Ashkenian Lake of Phrygia is named for them. Esarhaddon gave his daughter to the Ashkuza king Bartatua as wife, upon being assured by his sun god that Bartatua would remain loyal to Assyria. Hence we find the Ashkuza joining forces with the Assyrians against the Cimmerians and the Medes. Madyes, Bartatua’s son, tried unsuccessfully to aid the Assyrians when Nineveh was besieged by the Medes and Babylonians. Upon the fall of Assyria the Ashkuza became subject to the Medes. Together with the Indo-European kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Media, they are called up by Jeremiah to destroy Babylon (Jer. 51:27).
Riphath. Because of his relationship to Gomer, Ashkenaz, and Togarmah, Riphath was probably the progenitor of another Indo-European tribe of Cappadocia. His name, however, has not yet been found in ancient inscriptions. Josephus identifies his descendants with the Paphlagonians, who lived west of the lower Halys in Asia Minor and whose capital was Sinope.
Togarmah. Ancestor of the Tagarma or Tagarama, mentioned in Hittite records of the 14th century b.c. They are the Tilgarimmu of Assyrian inscriptions, which locate them in the northern Taurus Mountains. Sennacherib, Sargon’s son, mentions them with the Chilakki, who lived on the Halys in Asia Minor. Both Assyrian kings claim to have conquered their country. Ezekiel states (Eze. 27:14) that mules and horses were brought from their land to the markets of Phoenicia. Togarmah appears in Eze. 38:6 among the allies of Magog. The Armenians trace their genealogy back to Haik, the son of Torgom, and seem therefore to be descendants of Togarmah.
4. The sons of Javan; Elishah. Since Tyre imported its purple cloth from the “isles of Elishah” (Eze. 27:7), probably the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, it would seem likely that the descendants of Javan’s son Elishah should be sought in that region. It is known that Sicily and Sardinia were colonized by Greeks; thus the inhabitants of Sardinia and Sicily were the “sons” of mainland Greece just as Elishah was the son of Javan, progenitor of the Greeks. The similarity of the name Elishah to that part of Greece called Aeolis or Elis and to the name by which the Greeks called their country, “Hellas,” seems to connect Elishah, originally, with mainland Greece.
Tarshish. This name appears frequently in the Bible. According to Isa. 66:19 and Ps. 72:10, Tarshish was a land “afar off.” It had good trade relations with Tyre, which imported silver, iron, tin, and lead from thence (Eze. 27:12). Jonah intended to escape to Tarshish when the Lord sent him to Nineveh (Jonah 1:3). It was, presumably, the remote Phoenician colony in the mining district of southern Spain, the Tartessus of the Greeks and Romans, in the area of the middle and lower Baetis (now Guadalquivir) River. “Tarshish,” meaning “smelter” or “refinery,” was probably the name of several different places with which the Phoenicians and, at times, the Hebrews, carried on a trade in metals, in “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; see on 1 Kings 10:22).
Kittim. Many commentators have identified Kittim with Cyprus because a capital of Cyprus was named Kition. This would agree with Isa. 23:1, 12, which speaks of Chittim as being not far from Tyre and Sidon. In Jer. 2:10 and Dan. 11:30 the name Chittim denotes Greeks in general. But its earlier meaning, as in Isaiah, seems to be more circumscribed. It is, therefore, safe to identify Kittim either with Cyprus or with other islands in the vicinity of Greece.
Dodanim. If this spelling is correct, the Greek Dardanians, along the northwestern coast of Asia Minor, must be meant. The LXX, however, reads Rodioi. The parallel list of 1 Chron. 1:7 reads Rodanim in Hebrew, which the KJV translators changed to Dodanim, to agree with the Hebrew spelling in ch. 10:4. The letters d and r in Hebrew are so similar that a scribe may easily have mistaken the r for a d in this verse. If Rodanim was indeed the original spelling of the name, Greeks on the island of Rhodes are probably meant.
5. The isles of the Gentiles. Javan’s descendants, the various Greek tribes mentioned in the preceding verse—the people of Greece and islands adjacent to it, of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and Cyprus—went forth to settle the islands and coastal regions of the Mediterranean. This verse indicates that the names given designate only main tribal groups. Apparently, further branching out had occurred by the time of Moses. When Genesis was written the populations of the central and western Mediterranean were subdivided into many different groups, all probably descended from Javan, the fourth son of Japheth.
6. The sons of Ham; Cush. The Hebrew people were more intimately associated with the Hamitic races than with the descendants of Japheth. Cush, or Kush, is ancient Ethiopia, which was in classical times called Nubia. It was not Abyssinia, but included a part of Egypt and a part of the Sudan, extending from the first cataract of the Nile, at Aswan, as far south as Khartoum. In Egyptian inscriptions this land is called Kash, in Assyrian cuneiform texts, Kusu. Cush, however, included not only African Nubia but also the western part of Arabia bordering on the Red Sea. Some of the sons of Cush are known to have settled there. Zerah, the Cushite of 2 Chron. 14:9, and the Cushites of Isa. 45:14, mentioned with the Sabeans as men of stature, are thought to be western Arabians. About the time of Hezekiah, Judah was in contact with the African Cush, or Ethiopia, which is mentioned frequently in the later books of the OT (see 2 Kings 19:9; Esther 1:1; 8:9; Ps. 68:31; etc.).
Mizraim. The Egyptians were descendants of Ham’s second son. The origin of the Hebrew name Mizraim is obscure. Although this word is virtually the same in the Assyrian, Babylonian, Arabian, and Turkish languages as in the Hebrew, a similar native name has never been found in Egyptian inscriptions. The Egyptians called their country either the “Black Land,” designating the fertile strip of soil bordering on both banks of the river Nile in contrast with the desert “Red Land,” or they spoke of it as the “Two Lands,” reflecting an earlier historical division of the country into two separate kingdoms. Whether the word Mizraim, with its Hebrew dual ending, may be a reflection of the expression “Two Lands” is a disputed subject among scholars. Modern Egyptians use the name Misr and the adjective Misri in referring to Egypt.
Phut. Phut has traditionally been identified as the progenitor of the Libyans. This tradition goes back to the time of the LXX, which translated Phut as “Libya.” This identification is probably wrong. Ancient Egyptian inscriptions mention an African land by the name of Punt, Puṭa in Babylonian texts, to which from early times Egypt sent expeditions to obtain myrrh trees, leopard skins, ebony, ivory, and other exotic products. Punt, therefore, was probably the African coast of Somaliland and Eritrea and the Phut, or Put, of this text.
Canaan. Hieroglyphic and cuneiform inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. locate Canaan as the region bordering the Mediterranean on the west, Lebanon on the north, and Egypt on the south. It is, furthermore, a collective name for the indigenous population of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the Hittite city states of northern Syria. The Phoenicians and their colonists the Carthaginians of Northern Africa referred to themselves as Canaanites, on their coins, until Roman times (see v. 15). Though Canaan was the son of Ham, the Canaanitic language was Semitic—as the writing of the Canaanites clearly reveals. It seems that they accepted the Semitic language at a very early stage of their history. This was apparently true of the Egyptians also, for their language is strongly Semitic. In fact, the ancient Egyptians, whose Hamitic relationship no scholar will dispute, took over so many Semitic elements into their language that some scholars have classified ancient Egyptian as Semitic. The geographic proximity of the Canaanites to the Semitic nations of the Near East may have been responsible for their acceptance of the Semitic language. Babylonian culture, language, and script were taken over by virtually all peoples who lived between the Euphrates and Egypt, as the Amarna Letters of the 14th century b.c. indicate. On the Amarna Letters, see p. 106.
That a language spoken by a people is not always a clear indication of the race to which they belong is evident from numerous ancient and modern examples. The Arabic conquest of the whole Mediterranean region made Arabic the spoken and written language of Semitic and non-Semitic populations alike, from the Atlantic coast to the Indus.
7. The sons of Cush; Seba. The Jewish historian Josephus identifies Seba with the Nubian kingdom of Meroë an African land situated between the Blue Nile and Atbara rivers. This view may have been correct at the time of Josephus, since the Ethiopians had by then migrated to Africa from southern Arabia. However, Seba was a tribe, originally at least, in the southern part of Arabia. In Ps. 72:10 the most remote nations of Solomon’s time are pictured paying Solomon homage—Seba far to the south, Tarshish to the west, and Sheba to the east. In Isa. 43:3 Seba is referred to as being in close proximity to Cush. Isaiah 45:14 emphasizes the great stature of its people.
Havilah. Aside from the Bible itself Havilah is not mentioned. Various Biblical statements indicate that it was an Arabic tribe not far from Palestine. Genesis 25:18 places Edom’s eastern border at Havilah, which was also the eastern limit of Saul’s campaign against the Amalekites (see 1 Sam. 15:7). For the antediluvian Havilah see on Gen. 2:11.
Sabtah. Some commentators have identified Sabtah with Sabota, the capital city of the south Arabic country of Hadhramaut. Others think it was the same as Ptolemy’s Saphtha on the Persian Gulf. Definite identification is impossible.
Raamah. Inasmuch as the Arabic tribes of Sheba and Dedan were originally located in southwestern Arabia, it is likely that the people of Raamah lived in the same region. Ezekiel mentions Raamah with Sheba, as trading incense, precious stones, and gold in the market places of Tyre. It is probably the tribe of the Rhammanites, located by the Roman geographer Strabo in southwestern Arabia. They are also referred to in a famous Arabian inscription that ascribes praise to the local deity for saving the Minaeans from attacks of Sheba and Haulan, on the way from Ma‛in to Raamah.
Sabtechah. Nothing further is known of this son or his descendants. Some have sought to identify their home with Samudake on the Persian Gulf. This is very doubtful, because the Cushite Arabians all seem to have settled in the western part of Arabia.
Sheba. The Sabaeans, descendants of Sheba, are well known both from the Bible and from other sources. In OT times Sheba appears as a wealthy trading nation. It is generally held that it was this country whose queen paid a state visit to Solomon. Later the Sabaeans became the most important people of southern Arabia, in the country now called Yemen. A wealth of inscriptions, the majority as yet unpublished, bears witness to their religion, their history, and the high level of their culture. Through the building of large dams and an extensive irrigation system the Sabaeans greatly increased the fertility and wealth of their country, to the extent that it became known in classical times as Arabia Felix, “Happy Arabia.” The neglect and eventual destruction of these dams brought the gradual eclipse of the Sabaean nation.
Dedan. This grandson of Cush became the ancestor of a South Arabic tribe of which nothing more is known. This tribe must not be confused with that descended from a grandson of Abraham by Keturah that lived at the southern border of Edom in northwestern Arabia (Gen. 25:3; 1 Chron. 1:32; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:23; 49:8; Eze. 25:13; 27:15, 20; 38:13).
8. Cush begat Nimrod. Although Nimrod’s name is yet to be found in Babylonian records, Arabs still connect some ancient sites with his name. Birs-Nimrud, for instance, is their name for the ruins of Borsippa; and Nimrud, of Calah. These names must rest on very old traditions, and cannot be attributed to the influence of the Koran alone. So far as currently available historical evidence goes, the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia were not Semitic but Sumerian. Little is known as to the origin of the Sumerians. The fact that Nimrod, a Hamite, founded the first city states of Mesopotamia suggests that the Sumerians were possibly Hamitic.
A mighty one. This expression denotes a person renowned for bold and daring deeds. It may also include the connotation of “tyrant.”
9. Before the Lord. The LXX renders this phrase “against the Lord.” Although the hunter Nimrod acted in defiance of God, his mighty deeds made him famous among his contemporaries, and in future generations as well. Babylonian legends about Gilgamesh, who appears frequently on Babylonian reliefs and cylinder seals and in literary documents, may possibly refer to Nimrod. Gilgamesh is usually shown killing lions or other wild beasts with his bare hands. The fact that Nimrod was a Hamite may be the reason why the Babylonians, descendants of Shem, credited his famous deeds to one of their own hunters and purposely forgot his name.
10. The beginning of his kingdom. This may mean either his first kingdom or the beginning of his sovereignty. Nimrod appears in the register of nations as the author of imperialism. Under him society passed from the patriarchal form to the monarchical. He is the first man mentioned in the Bible as the head of a kingdom.
Babel. Nimrod’s first kingdom was Babylon. Having the idea that their city was the earthly reflection of the heavenly dwelling place of their god, the Babylonians gave it the name Bab-ilu, “the gate of god” (see on ch. 11:9). Babylonian legends equate the founding of the city with the creation of the world. No doubt with this in mind Sargon, an early Semitic king of Mesopotamia, took sacred soil from Babylon for the founding of another city modeled after it. Even in the later period of Assyrian supremacy Babylon did not lose its significance as the center of Mesopotamian culture. Its greatest fame and glory, however, came in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who made of it the world’s first metropolis. After its destruction by the Persian king Xerxes, Babylon lay partly in ruins (see on Isa. 13:19).
Erech. The Babylonian Uruk, modern Warka. Recent excavations prove this to be one of the oldest cities in existence. The earliest written documents ever to be discovered were found there. Uruk was known to the Babylonians as the vicinity where the mighty deeds of Gilgamesh were performed, a fact which seems to support the suggestion that the Gilgamesh legends were reminiscences of Nimrod’s early accomplishments.
Accad. The seat of the early kings Sargon and Naram-Sin (p. 135). The ruins of this city have not been located, but must be in the neighborhood of Babylon. The ancient Semitic population of Lower Mesopotamia came to be called Accadian, and the Babylonian and Assyrian languages are now referred to, collectively, by the same term.
Calneh. Though Calneh has not yet been identified with certainty, it was probably the same as Nippur, the present Niffer. A large percentage of the known Sumerian texts have been found at this site. It was called by the Sumerians Enlil-ki, “the city of [the god] Enlil.” The Babylonians reversed the sequence of the two elements of this name and referred to the city, in their oldest inscriptions, as Ki-Enlil, later Ki-Illina. This may have given rise to the Hebrew “Calneh.” Next to Babylon, Nippur was the most sacred city of Lower Mesopotamia and boasted important temples. From earliest times to the late Persian period, the city was a center of culture and extensive trade.
Shinar. The afore-mentioned cities lay in the land of Shinar, the term generally used in the OT for Babylonia, comprising Sumer in the south as well as Accad in the north (see Gen. 11:2; 14:1, 9; Joshua 7:21, Heb., “a garment of Shinar”; Isa. 11:11; Zech. 5:11; Dan. 1:2). The name is still somewhat obscure. It was formerly thought to have been derived from the word Sumer, the ancient Sumeria, which lay in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia. More likely, however, it is from Shanhara of certain cuneiform texts, a land whose exact location has not been determined. Some texts seem to indicate that Shanhara was in northern Mesopotamia rather than in the south. Although it is certain that Shinar is Babylonia, the origin of the term is not yet clear.
11. Out of that land went forth Asshur. Even though this translation is possible, the sentence construction in Hebrew favors that given by the RSV, which retains Nimrod as the subject and reads, “From that land he went into Assyria.” In Micah 5:6 Assyria is called “the land of Nimrod.” Nimrod’s move into Assyria and his renewed building activity there constituted an extension of his empire in a northerly direction. What Assyria lacked in geographical size it made up in political power later in its history.
Nineveh. For centuries Nineveh was famous as the capital of Assyria. The Assyrians themselves called it Ninua, apparently dedicating it to the Babylonian goddess Nina. This points to Babylon as Nimrod’s previous home and agrees with the Biblical report that he, the first king of Babylon, was also founder of Nineveh. Excavations have shown that Nineveh was one of the oldest cities of Upper Mesopotamia. Lying at the intersection of busy international trade routes, Nineveh early became an important commercial center. It changed hands repeatedly during the second millennium b.c., belonging in turn to the Babylonians, Hittites, and Mitannians before being brought under Assyrian control in the 14th century b.c. Later, as capital of the Assyrian Empire, it was embellished with magnificent palaces and temples and strongly fortified. In 612 b.c. the city was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians, and has since then remained a heap of ruins. In its famous library, established by Ashurbanipal, have been found thousands of baked clay tablets containing invaluable historical, religious, and business documents and letters. Above all others, this discovery has enriched our knowledge of ancient Assyria and Babylonia.
Rehoboth. Literally, the “wide places” or “streets of the city.” This probably designates Rêbit-Ninâ a suburb of Nineveh mentioned in certain cuneiform texts. Its exact location, however, is still uncertain. Some scholars think it to have been northeast of Nineveh; others, across the river Tigris on the site of modern Mosul.
Calah. The ancient Assyrian city of Kalhu, which lies at the confluence of the Great Zab and Tigris rivers, about 20 miles south of Nineveh. Its present name, Nimrud, perpetuates the memory of its founder. Magnificent palaces were once the pride of this city, which served intermittently as the capital of the Assyrian Empire. In its extensive ruins have been preserved huge stone monuments and some of the finest examples of Assyrian sculpture. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, on which appears the earliest pictorial representation of an Israelite king and other Hebrews, was found in one of its palaces. The inscription on the obelisk records the payment of tribute by King Jehu of Israel in 841 b.c.
12. Resen. The Bible places Resen between Nineveh and Calah, but its exact site is yet to be discovered.
13. Mizraim begat Ludim. Moses proceeds to the descendants of Ham’s second son, Mizraim, whose name was later given to Egypt. Some commentators assume a scribal error to be responsible for a supposed change from Lubim, the Libyans, to the Ludim, or Lydians. But the name appears in different books of the Bible (1 Chron. 1:11; Isa. 66:19; Jer. 46:9; Eze. 27:10; 30:5); therefore it is impossible to see mistakes in all passages where Ludim, or Lud, occurs. In some of these passages Ludim and Lubim are both mentioned as being distinct and separate peoples. Moreover, the LXX translated Ludim as “Lydians.” This makes plausible an identification with the Lydians of Asia Minor, who must have migrated from Northern Africa to Anatolia at an early stage in their history. They appeared in the plain of Sardis in western Asia Minor before the middle of the second millennium b.c. and gradually spread over half of the country, to the great river Halys. During the Hittite supremacy Lydia was subject to them, but again became a strong, independent kingdom after the collapse of the Hittite Empire in the 13th century b.c. Cyrus conquered Lydia in the 6th century b.c. and incorporated it into the Persian Empire. Its former capital, Sardis, however, remained an important city for many centuries. It was still a flourishing metropolis in the early Christian period, when John wrote his letter to the church there (Rev. 3:1-6).
If, however, the Biblical Ludim are not the historical Lydians, they must have lived somewhere in Northern Africa, in proximity to most of the other descendants of Mizraim. If this be so, we cannot identify the Ludim, for mention is not made of such a people in any ancient record but the Bible.
Anamim. Perhaps the Anamim lived in the great oasis of Egypt called Kenemet (the k sound is frequently represented in Hebrew by the consonant ‘ayin, with which the name ‘Anamim begins). But in 1920 Albright, from Assyrian Anami, made a different identification: Cyrene.
Lehabim. Presumably the Libyans (called in Egyptian inscriptions Rbw, probably pronounced Lebu), attested by very early records as representing the tribes bordering on Egypt to the northwest. Eventually they occupied most of Northern Africa. Apparently in the Bible they are also called “Lubim” (see 2 Chron. 12:3; 16:8; Dan. 11:43; Nahum 3:9). The identification of the Lehabim with the Libyans would constitute one more argument against seeing in the previously discussed Ludim a mistake for Lubim.
Naphtuhim. The identity of this people is uncertain. Perhaps the best suggestion is that it refers to Egyptians of the Nile Delta. In Egyptian inscriptions these people were called Na-patûh, which may be the same as the Biblical Naphtuhim.
14. Pathrusim. The Pathrusim were probably the inhabitants of Upper Egypt. In Isa. 11:11 Pathros is listed between Cush (Nubia) and Mizraim (Egypt). The name Pathros is the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian Pa-ta-res, written in Assyrian inscriptions Paturisi, and meaning “the southland.” Ezekiel 29:14 points to Pathros as the original homeland of the Egyptians. This agrees with their own ancient tradition that the first king Menes, the one who united the nation, came from the old upper Egyptian city of This.
Casluhim. Not yet identified. Whether they may have been the inhabitants of the area bordering on the Mediterranean west of Egypt is uncertain.
Philistim. Because Amos 9:7 declares that the Philistines came from Caphtor, most commentators think that the word “Caphtorim” should be placed before the phrase “out of whom came Philistim.” Inasmuch as Casluh and Caphtor were sons of the same father, some of the Philistine tribes may have originated from Casluh, others from his brother Caphtor. The Philistines who came into Palestine from Crete by way of Asia Minor and Syria may have had their original home in Northern Africa. As inhabitants of the coastal region of southern Palestine they played an important role in Hebrew history. The Philistines are mentioned frequently not only in the Bible but also in Egyptian records as Prst (probably pronounced Puresati). Egyptian reliefs picture their features, dress, and modes of traveling and fighting, thus supplementing information about them given in the Bible. They are also mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions under the name Palastu. The Greeks called the land of Philista Palaistinē and applied that name to the whole country, which has been known ever since as Palestine (see Isa. 14:29, where Peleshet is translated “Palestine”).
Caphtorim. This people is mentioned also in Deut. 2:23, Jer. 47:4, and Amos 9:7. Egyptian inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. definitely apply the name Keftiu to the first inhabitants of Crete, and also in a wider sense to the coastland peoples of Asia Minor and Greece. This usage of Keftiu suggests Crete and migrations to surrounding coastal regions, which would include Syria and Palestine. The Philistines were remnants of these so-called “peoples of the sea.”
15. Canaan. For some unknown reason Moses omits the enumeration of the descendants of Ham’s third son Phut, and proceeds to Canaan, youngest of the four brothers. The land of Canaan was strategically located on the important “bridge” between Asia and Africa, between the two great river cultures of antiquity, in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Biblical Canaan was Palestine west of the Jordan, extending north into present Lebanon and Syria.
Sidon his firstborn. The seaport Sidon, known as “great Zidon” at the time of the Hebrew conquest (Joshua 11:8), named in Egyptian hieroglyphic and Mesopotamian cuneiform texts, was the most powerful of the Phoenician city-states from the earliest times. Many Phoenicians then called themselves Sidonians even when they were actually citizens of neighboring cities.
The Sidonians occupied Cyprus and founded colonies in Cilicia and Caria in Asia Minor, on various Greek islands, on Crete, and on the coasts of the Black Sea.
Leadership among the cities of Phoenicia passed from Sidon to its sister city Tyre about 1100 b.c. The Phoenicians were friendly to David and Solomon and to the northern kingdom of Israel as well, but exercised an evil religious influence upon the latter. Esarhaddon claimed to have conquered the island city of Tyre, but Nebuchadnezzar, after capturing mainland Tyre, failed to take the island city after a siege lasting 13 years. As a result Sidon once more played an important role, during the Persian period, but was completely destroyed by Artaxerxes III in 351 b.c. The same fate befell Tyre a few years later, when Alexander took it in 332 b.c., so bringing to a close the long and glorious history of the Phoenician city-states.
Heth. Ancestor of the Hittites, called Kheta by the Egyptians and Hatti in cuneiform texts. The Hittites, with their capital in central Asia Minor, grew into a strong empire in the 17th century b.c. They gained control over much of Asia Minor and Syria, and in extending southward came into conflict city Egypt. This centralized Hittite Empire was later destroyed by the “People of the Sea” and dissolved into many Syrian city-states. The Assyrians called Syria the country of the Hittites. Hittite texts, in both cuneiform and hieroglyphic forms of an Indo-European language, have given us rich information on the history, laws, and culture of this nation. Probably, however, the descendants of Heth were the earlier “proto-Hittites,” whose language was called Hattili (see p. 137).
16. The Jebusite. These inhabitants of pre-Israelitic Jerusalem seem to have been only a small and unimportant tribe, since they are never mentioned outside of the Bible and are confined to Jerusalem in the OT records (see Gen. 15:21; Num. 13:29; Judges 19:10, 11; etc.). Solomon made the remnants of the Jebusites serfs of the crown (1 Kings 9:20).
The Amorite. A powerful group of peoples found from the border of Egypt to Babylonia during the patriarchal age. They were the founders of the First Dynasty of Babylon, of which Hammurabi, the great Babylonian lawgiver, was the most famous king. The available evidence shows that they infiltrated Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine in the early part of the second millennium b.c., and replaced the existing ruling classes in those countries. At the time when the Hebrews invaded the country only remnants of the formerly powerful Amorite populations were encountered (Num. 21:21).
The Girgasite. Mentioned only in the Bible, this people was an indigenous Canaanite tribe of Palestine (Joshua 24:11).
17. The Hivite. Though mentioned 25 times in various OT passages, the Hivites were nevertheless an obscure Canaanite tribe. Some hold that the name Hivite should read “Horite” (Hurrian), as the LXX has it twice, with a change of only one letter in Hebrew. (See pp. 425, 138.)
The Arkite. This people inhabited the Phoenician seaport of Irkata, situated about 16 mi. northeast of Tripoli in the foothills of Lebanon. Pharaoh Thutmose III conquered the whole region during the 15th century b.c. It remained in Egyptian possession for at least 100 years, as the Amarna Letters of the 14th century indicate. King Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria mentions the city as one that paid tribute to him in the 8th century.
The Sinite. This group lived in and about the city of Siannu, which Tiglath-pileser III mentions, together with other tributary Phoenician vassals, in the 8th century b.c. Its exact location is still unknown.
18. The Arvadite. The Arvadites inhabited the ancient city of Arvad, built on an island off the northern coast of Phoenicia. The city appears repeatedly in ancient records of Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt. Inscriptions of about 1100 b.c. say that Tiglath-pileser I sailed for a whale hunt with the ships of Arvad. The mentioning of the whale as occurring in the Mediterranean Sea during the second millennium b.c. is significant in connection with the story of Jonah, and with the mention of great sea monsters in Ps. 104:26. Ezekiel 27:8, 11 mentions the Arvadites as mariners and brave warriors.
The Zemarite. Also a Phoenician people. Simirra occurs in Assyrian, Palestinian, and Egyptian documents as a wealthy city of merchants. The Egyptian Pharaohs Thutmose III and Seti I conquered the city for Egypt in the 15th and 14th centuries b.c., but during the period of the Assyrian supremacy Simirra, like other Phoenician cities, became tributary to Tiglath-pileser III and his successors.
The Hamathite. Hamath was a famous ancient city situated on the principal river of Syria, the Orontes. It is mentioned in Egyptian as well as in Assyrian documents. Tiglath-pileser III subjugated it, but it soon regained its independence and joined other enemies of Assyria in a long but unsuccessful struggle against that empire.
19. The border of the Canaanites. Not all the borders of the Canaanite area are here given. Only cities at the southern limit of the eastern border are mentioned. (For a more complete discussion of the geographical location of these cities, see on ch. 14:3.) Although the eastern and northern borders are not specifically mentioned, it may safely be assumed that the northern Arabian Desert in the east and the Syrian city of Hamath on the Orontes (see v. 18) in the north marked the limits of the Canaanite area. The Canaanites were scattered all along the Phoenician and Palestinian coasts.
21. The children of Eber. After enumerating the descendants of Japheth and Ham, Moses next lists those of Shem. His first statement concerns the Hebrews, who as descendants of Eber (ch. 11:16-26), were Shemites (or Semites). Recent discoveries make it evident that the Habiru mentioned in Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Syrian, Canaanite, and Egyptian inscriptions were to be found among all of these nations during the second millennium b.c., and that they were apparently related to the Hebrews. There is reason to assume that the Habiru were descendants of Eber as the Hebrews were; also, ancient sources occasionally refer to the Hebrews as Habiru. But it is certain that not all the Habiru mentioned in non-Biblical documents were Hebrews. The exceptionally wide dispersion of the Habiru throughout many countries of the ancient world may have led Moses to make the unusual statement that Shem was “the father of all the children of Eber.”
The brother of Japheth the elder. In Hebrew this phrase permits a translation making Japheth the elder brother of Shem, as the KJV renders it, or Shem “the elder brother of Japheth,” as in the RSV. The KJV is correct (see on ch. 5:32).
22. The children of Shem; Elam. This verse leads the reader to the home of the Semites, Mesopotamia and eastern Arabia. Elam was the region bordering on the lower Tigris in the west and on Media in the northeast. Elam’s ancient capital, Susa, the Biblical Shushan (Dan. 8:2), became, in later times, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire (see, for example, Esther 1:2). Excavations at Susa have brought to light numerous documents written in cuneiform script that allows us to reconstruct their history and religion. Elam’s descendants, Semites, settled very early in that area, but they evidently mingled with others, for their language as known from cuneiform records was not Semitic. It belonged to the Asianic-Armenoid group of languages. The relationship of the later Elamites with other known nations, however, is obscure.
Asshur. Assyria occupied the central part of the Tigris valley, extending in the north to the mountains of Armenia and in the east to the Median plateau. The name of Shem’s son Asshur was in turn taken over by the chief god of the Assyrians, by the oldest capital of the country, Assur, now Kalah-Shergat, and by the nation itself. Assyria appears in historical records from the beginning of the second millennium b.c. until its destruction by the Medes and Babylonians in the latter part of the 7th century. During its most powerful period Assyria was the scourge of all nations. Its cruelty toward conquered foes has never been surpassed. The kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom of Judah itself barely escaped.
Arphaxad. Identified by some commentators with Arrapha, the region between Media and Assyria. It is more likely the ancient country of Arrapachitis, between Lakes Urmia and Van. It was probably named after Arphaxad (Heb. Arpachshad).
Lud. Distinct from the Ludim mentioned in v. 13. Lud can be identified with the country of Lubdi, which appears in the ancient records as a region lying between the upper Euphrates and Tigris rivers.
Aram. Ancestor of the Aramaeans. In the early second millennium b.c. this people occupied the northwestern portion of Mesopotamia, but they spread southward in later times.
The Aramaeans in the north were never united as a nation, but were divided into many small tribes and city-states. The strongest of the Aramaean states, Damascus, was finally conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 b.c. This event marks the end of the political history of the Aramaeans, but by no means the end of their cultural influence upon surrounding nations. They were scattered far and wide among the ancient peoples and passed their language and script on to them. As a result the Aramaic language became, within a very short time, a universal vehicle of communication from the border of India in the east to the Aegean Sea in the west, and from the Caucasus in the north to Ethiopia in the south. For centuries Aramaic remained the most widely used language in the Near East, and was the common tongue of the Jews in Jesus’ day.
Either Aramaean in origin or closely related were the Chaldeans, a south Babylonian tribe living in an area around “Ur of the Chaldees,” who fought the Assyrians, held the throne of Babylon several times in the 8th century b.c. and later founded the great neo-Babylonian dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar II, conqueror of Jerusalem.
23. The children of Aram; Uz. The name Uz was borne not only by Aram’s eldest son but also by the first son of Nahor (ch. 22:21, KJV, “Huz”), and by a grandson of Seir, the ancestor of the Horites. It is therefore difficult to limit Uz to a well-defined region. For the same reason it is not possible to determine Job’s location as an inhabitant of the land Uz (Job 1:1), nor to identify Sasi, the prince of Uz, mentioned by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. Nothing is known of the Aramaic tribes of Hul, Gether, and Mash.
24. Arphaxad begat Salah. Inasmuch as the line from Arphaxad to Abraham is considered more in detail in ch. 11, Moses says little about it here. He follows it, however, through the first several generations in order to show the descent of the Joktan Arabs, who were cousins of the Hebrews through their common ancestor, Eber.
Eber. On Eber’s possible connection with the Habiru of non-Biblical sources, see on v. 21.
25. Peleg. Peleg means “division.” He was the first-born son of Eber and one of the ancestors of Abraham. Although the text speaks literally of a splitting up of the “earth,” it is more likely that the word “earth” signifies its people, as in chs. 9:19 and 11:1. Moses probably anticipates the events described in the next chapter, the confusion of tongues and the resulting dispersion of peoples. His remarks made in ch. 10:5, 20, and 31 about the diversity of tongues are to be understood in the same way. If the confusion of tongues took place about the time of Peleg’s birth, we can easily understand why he received the name Peleg, “division.” “In his days was the earth divided.”
Joktan. Peleg’s brother Joktan was the ancestor of an important group, the Joktan Arabs. The descent of the western, or Cushite, Arabs is given in v. 7, whereas the genealogy of the Arab descendants of Abraham is given in later chapters of Genesis. A third group of Arabs, described here, seems to have settled in the central, eastern, and southeastern parts of Arabia. Much less is known about them than about the other two Arabian groups.
26. Almodad, and Sheleph. The name Almodad has not yet been found in non-Biblical sources; hence no identification beyond the brief information in this text is possible. Sheleph may have been an Arabic people, the Salapenes, mentioned by Ptolemy.
Hazarmaveth. The Hadramaut of the south Arabic inscriptions, a country rich in incense, myrrh, and aloes. Its ancient population was devoted to the worship of the moon god Sin and his messenger Hol. Nothing is known of the Arabian tribe of Jerah.
27. Hadoram. The south Arabian tribe of the Adramites. Uzal may have been in Yemen. Diklah is still unidentified.
28. Sheba. As already noticed in connection with the explanation of the Cushite Sheba of southern Arabia (v. 7), the Joktanite Sabaeans are probably north Arabians of this name. They are mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II (8th century b.c.) as allies of the Aribi. Nothing is known of Obal and Abimael.
29. Ophir. Designates both a people and a land. Although mentioned frequently in the OT, its precise location is still unknown. Inasmuch as it took Solomon’s ships three years to complete a voyage from the Red Sea port of Ezion-Geber (1 Kings 9:28; 10:11, 22; etc.), Ophir must have been a rather distant land. Scholars have identified it with a southeastern region of Arabia, with a strip on the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf called Apir by the Elamites, or with India. The products imported from Ophir, gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks, may favor an identification with India rather than with Arabia. If Ophir was in India, it is hard to explain why all the other identifiable descendants of Joktan migrated eastward to the subcontinent of India after Genesis was written, because Moses places all the descendants of Joktan within definite geographical limits (see v. 30). According to another explanation, Ophir of the table of nations was in Arabia, whereas that of Solomon’s expeditions was in India. The latest available evidence, however, based on Egyptian inscriptions, seems to identify Ophir with Punt, which is understood to be the region of Somaliland in East Africa.
Havilah, and Jobab. Neither has as yet been identified.
30. Their dwelling. The places mentioned cannot be identified with certainty. Mesha is perhaps Mesene at the northwestern end of the Persian Gulf, and Sephar is possibly the city Saprapha of Ptolemy and Pliny, now Dofar, on the southeastern coast of Arabia. A high mountain standing in the immediate neighborhood of Dofar, which corresponds to the “mount of the east” mentioned by the Inspired Record, seems to favor this identification.
31. The sons of Shem. The enumeration of Shem’s descendants is concluded in words similar to those of Japheth and Ham in vs. 5 and 20. There is no doubt that the names given in this table of nations refer primarily to tribes and peoples, and but indirectly to individuals.
32. These are the families. The detailed discussion of the names, their identification, and other information about the nations mentioned point to the Biblical table of nations as an ancient and reliable document. Many of the names appear in non-Biblical sources of the first half of the second millennium b.c., some as early as 2000 b.c., or perhaps even earlier. Ancient records being fragmentary, some nations appear only in records of a comparatively late date. The Medes, for instance, do not appear in secular documents earlier than the 9th century b.c. This does not mean that such nations did not exist in earlier times, but rather that records by them or about them have not been found. Some, like the Joktan Arabs, may have had little contact with the nations whose records we do possess. The continuous discovery of ancient historical source material may be expected to shed further light on Gen. 10.
This table proclaims the unity of the human race, declaring that all have descended from a common source. Diverse as they now are in their geographical location, their physical appearance, or their national peculiarities, all can trace their origin back to Noah and his three sons. This list condemns all theories that would trace mankind back to different original parents. The list, furthermore, constitutes evidence supporting the account of the dispersion of races as being due to the confusion of tongues described in the next chapter. Moses (Deut. 32:8) and Paul (Acts 17:26) both affirm that the allocation of territory was made by God.
1. One language. Literally, “one lip and one kind of words,” indicating not only one language understood by all but the absence of differences in dialect as well. Pronunciation and vocabulary were the same among all men. Unity of language goes with unity of descent, and a common language does much to promote unity of thought and action. Modern research in comparative grammar has demonstrated conclusively that all known languages are related and that they have descended from one common original. The question as to whether any known language resembles that original speech cannot be answered. It is possible, even probable, that one of the Semitic tongues, such as Hebrew or Aramaic, is similar to the language men spoke before the confusion of tongues. Personal names of the period preceding the confusion of tongues, as far as they can be interpreted, make sense only if considered to be originally Semitic. The record containing these names, the book of Genesis, is written in Hebrew, a Semitic tongue, by a Semite author, and for Semitic readers. It is therefore possible, although unlikely, that Moses translated these names from an original language unknown to his readers, into Hebrew names that would have meaning for them.
2. As they journeyed. As indicated by the verb “journeyed,” literally, “to pull out,” like the pegs of a tent, men lived a nomadic life for a time after the Flood. The mountainous region of Ararat was not well adapted to agricultural pursuits. Furthermore, those who forsook God resented the silent witness of the holy lives of those who were loyal to Him. Accordingly, there occurred a separation of the evil from among the good, with those who defied God leaving the mountains (PP 118).
From the east. The KJV translation “from the east,” for miqqedem, is misleading. The same Hebrew expression is translated “eastward” in ch. 2:8 and “east” in ch. 13:11. To reach the land of Shinar, Babylonia, from the mountains of Ararat, the direction of travel would of necessity be southeasterly, not “from the east” in a westerly direction.
They found a plain. That is, a wide, open land. In antiquity the southern Mesopotamian lowland, often called “Shinar” in the Bible (see on ch. 10:10), was a well-watered, fertile region. The oldest known civilization, that of the Sumerians, thrived here. The spade of the archeologist reveals this land to have been densely populated in earliest historical times. This fact agrees with Genesis as to the locality in which a permanent settlement was first attempted. Excavations have shown, furthermore, that the earliest population of Lower Mesopotamia possessed a high culture. The Sumericans invented the art of writing on clay tablets, built well-constructed houses, and were masters in the production of jewelry, tools, and household utensils.
3. Let us make brick. The plain of Babylonia, alluvial in formation, lacked stone of any kind but had an ample supply of clay for making brick. Lower Mesopotamia has as a result always been a land of brick buildings, in contrast to Assyria, where stone is plentiful. Most bricks, in ancient as in modern times, were sun dried, but bricks for public buildings were baked in the fire to make them more durable. This process was employed by the earliest settlers in Mesopotamia, as the Bible and the spade both testify.
Brick for stone. Writing for the Hebrews in Egypt, a land of majestic stone monuments and public buildings, Moses explains that in Babylonia brick was used because of the lack of stone. This detail, like many others, attests the historical and geographical accuracy of the Genesis narrative.
Slime had they for morter. Another exact detail concerning Babylonian methods of construction. The Hebrew word here translated “slime” means, more accurately, asphalt or bitumen. Mesopotamia abounds in oil and related products, and asphalt wells existed in the vicinity of Babylon as well as in other parts of the country. Having discovered the durable quality of asphalt, early Babylonian builders used it extensively in the erection of buildings. Asphalt binds the bricks together so well that it is difficult to save any of them when a building is demolished. In fact, it is almost impossible to detach bricks from ancient ruins in whose construction asphalt was used.
4. Let us build us a city. Cain had built the first city (ch. 4:17), in an attempt, perhaps, to avoid the nomadic life God had marked out for him. God’s original plan called for men to spread over the face of the earth and to cultivate the soil (see ch. 1:28). The building of cities represented opposition to this plan. The concentration of human beings has always encouraged laziness, immorality, and other vices. Cities have ever been hotbeds of crime, for in such an environment Satan finds less resistance to his attacks than in smaller communities where people live in close touch with nature. God had told Noah to replenish, or fill, the earth (ch. 9:1). In fear of unknown or suspected dangers, however, men wanted to build a city, in the hope of finding security through the works of their hands. They chose to forget that true security comes only in trusting and obeying God. The rapidly increasing descendants of Noah must have departed very soon from the worship of the true God. In the fear that their evil ways would again invite catastrophe, they sought protection.
A tower. This would give inhabitants of the city the desired feeling of security. Such a citadel would protect them against attack, and enable them, they believed, to escape another flood—which God had promised should never be. The Flood had covered the highest mountains of the antediluvian world, but had not reached “unto heaven.” If, therefore, a structure higher than the mountains could be erected, men reasoned, they would be safe whatever God might do. Archeological excavations reveal that the earliest inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia erected many towerlike temples dedicated to the worship of various idol deities.
Let us make us a name. The Tower of Babel was to have been a monument to the superior wisdom and skill of its builders. To establish a “name,” or reputation, for themselves, men have been willing to endure hardship, danger, and privation. The desire for renown was apparently one of the impelling motives for building the tower, and pride in such a structure would, in turn, tend to maintain unity in the accomplishment of other unsanctified schemes. According to the divine purpose, men were to have preserved unity through the bond of true religion. When idolatry and polytheism broke this inner spiritual bond, they lost not only unity of religion but also the spirit of brotherhood. A project such as the tower, to preserve by outward means the inward unity which had been lost, could never succeed. Obviously, only those who had forsaken God took part in these activities.
5. The Lord came down. This coming down is not the same as at Sinai, where the Lord revealed His presence by a visible symbol (see Ex. 19:20; 34:5; Num. 11:25; etc.). It is simply a description in human language of the fact that men’s doings are never hidden from God. When men would build up toward heaven and exalt themselves, God came down to investigate and defeat their impious plans.
Builded. The perfect form of the Hebrew verb here translated “builded” implies that construction was progressing rapidly toward completion. The term “children of men,” literally “sons of the man,” is so general in its sweep as to suggest that all, or at least a majority, of those who no longer served God took part in the project.
6. This they begin to do. The Tower of Babel represented doubt of God’s word and defiance of His will. It was designed as monument to apostasy and as a citadel of rebellion against Him. This was but the first step in an evil master plan to control the world. Prompt and decisive action was called for, to warn men of God’s displeasure and to frustrate their wicked schemes. That men may be assured that God is not arbitrary in His dealings and does not act on sudden impulse, He is represented as taking counsel with Himself. The reason for His intervention is clearly stated.
Except for the restraining power of God exercised from time to time in the course of history, the evil designs of men would be carried forward to success, and society would become wholly corrupt. The comparative order in society today is due to the restraining power of God. Satan’s power is definitely limited (see Job 1:12; 2:6; Rev. 7:1).
7. Let us go down. The use of the pronoun “us” indicates the participation of at least two persons of the Godhead (see Gen. 1:26).
Confound their language. God did not wish again to destroy man. Wickedness had not as yet reached the limits to which it had gone before the Flood, and God determined to check it before it should again reach that point. By confusing their language and thus forcing them to separate, God designed to forestall future united action. Each of the groups might yet pursue an evil course, but the division of society into many groups would prevent concerted opposition to God. Upon repeated occasions since the dispersion of the races at Babel, ambitious men have sought, unsuccessfully, to contravene the divine decree of separation. Ingenious leaders have succeeded, at times, in forcing the nations into an artificial unity. But with the establishment of God’s glorious kingdom the nations of the saved will be truly united and speak one language.
Not understand one another’s speech. Not that one man could not understand any of his fellow men, as such a situation would render the existence of society impossible. There were to be various tribal groups, each of which was to have its own speech. Such is the origin of the world’s great variety of languages and dialects, which now number approximately 3,000.
The division of languages, though an obstacle to human schemes for political and economic cooperation, was not to be an obstacle to the triumph of the cause of God. The gift of tongues at Pentecost was to be one means of overcoming this difficulty (see Acts 2:5-12). National differences do not prevent either unity of faith and action on the part of God’s children or the advancement of His eternal purpose. God’s Word has been made available to the nations in their own tongue, and brethren of like faith, though separated by racial and linguistic differences, are nevertheless bound together in their love for Jesus and their devotion to truth. The brotherhood of faith unites them more firmly than could the possession of a common language. In the unity of the church the world is to see convincing evidence of the purity and power of its message (see John 17:21).
8. Scattered them abroad What men had not been willing to do voluntarily and under favorable circumstances, they were now compelled to do because of necessity. Inability to understand one another’s speech led to misunderstanding, distrust, and division. Those who could understand one another formed a small community of their own. This verse indicates that the builders of Babel were scattered far and wide, with the result that soon thereafter representatives of the human family were to be found in most parts of the world. Evidence from many lands testifies to the presence of human beings within a comparatively short time after the Flood. Archeological discoveries point to the Mesopotamian valley as the first locality to develop a distinct civilization. Similar civilizations sprang up soon afterward in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, India, China, and elsewhere. All available evidence supports the cryptic saying of Holy Writ that “the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth.”
They left off to build. The tower that was to rise to heaven to rise to heaven was never completed. However, it is evident from the Bible and from history that the local population subsequently completed the work of building the city.
9. Babel. By a play on words the Hebrew linked the name of the city, Babel, with the Hebrew verb balal, “to confuse.” It would have been a strange procedure, however, for the Babylonians to derive a name for their city from a Hebrew word. Ancient Babylonian texts interpret Bab-ilu or Bab-ilanu as meaning “port of god” or “gateway of the gods.” It is, however, possible that this meaning was secondary, and that the name was originally from the Babylonian verb babalu, meaning “to scatter,” or “to disappear.” Perhaps the Babylonians were not particularly proud of a name that reminded them of the inglorious climax of earlier plans for the city, and so invented an explanation that made it appear to be a compound of the names bab, “port,” and ilu, “god” (see on ch. 10:10).
Most modern commentators explain the story of the building of the tower and the subsequent confusion of tongues either as an outright legend or as a gross exaggeration of some tragedy that occurred during the construction of Babylon’s historical temple tower, called a ziggurat. Contrary to what many popular works on Biblical archeology have stated, archeologists have found no evidence that the Tower of Babel ever existed. The very fragmentary tablet K3657 of the British Museum, which has frequently been quoted as referring to the story of the building of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, actually makes no references at all to this event, as subsequent studies and a better understanding of this text have shown. One who believes only those Bible stories that are corroborated by outside evidence will refuse to believe the story of Gen. 11. However, he who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God will accept this narrative, along with all other Bible narratives, as authentic.
The passion of Mesopotamian peoples for building lofty towers did not cease with the first unsuccessful attempt to erect one that would “reach unto heaven.” Throughout antiquity they continued building temple towers, or ziggurats. Several such ruins are still standing. The best preserved one is at Ur, Abraham’s early home.
The exact location of the original tower is unknown. Probably the later temple tower of Babylon replaced it. An old Jewish tradition, probably based mistakenly on a 7th-century ruin, located the Tower of Babel at Borsippa, a city 9 mi. southwest of Babylon. An imposing ruin 156 feet high is all that remains of an ancient tower in Borsippa which once consisted of seven steps surmounted by a temple. Inscriptions by Nebuchadnezzar found under the foundations of the building state that he completed the building of this tower, the erection of which a former king had begun. The Jewish historian Josephus attributes the tower to Nimrod, a tradition that has been perpetuated by the local population in their name for it, Birs-Nimrud. Like all Babylonian edifices, this tower was built of brick and bitumen, and the ruins show the marks of numerous bolts of lightning which struck it in ages past. This application of heat has welded the uppermost bricks and asphalt together in a solid mass. Travelers have for centuries described the effects of heavenly fire upon the tower, usually with reference to the events described in Gen. 11.
It should not be forgotten, however, that the tower of Borsippa was not built earlier than the 7th century b.c., by Ashurbanipal and Nebuchadnezzar. Whatever the location of the first Tower of Babel may have been, all traces of the original structure have vanished.
It is more probable that the ancient Tower of Babel was on the site of the temple tower of the city of Babylon, which once stood in the Marduk temple area on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Babylonian traditions claimed that its foundation had been laid in very early times. Several kings restored the tower during the course of its history, Nebuchadnezzar being the last to do so. This tower is described in detail by the Greek historian Herodotus, and also by a Babylonian cuneiform text, as having had 7 steps and a total height of 250 ft. The Persian king Xerxes destroyed it completely, along with the city of Babylon, in 478 b.c. Planning to rebuild the tower, Alexander the Great had the debris cleared away, but he died before his plan could be carried out. Nothing whatever remains of the highest and most famous temple tower of ancient Mesopotamian, save the foundation stones and the lowest steps of its old stairway. The fact that since Xerxes’ time nothing could be seen of this tower, whereas the one in neighboring Borsippa remained standing, may be the reason that Jews and Christians alike connected the story of Gen. 11 with the ruins of Borsippa.
10. The generations of Shem. The usual title for a genealogy (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; etc.). Moses now returns to the line of Shem, his discussion of which was interrupted by the account of the confusion of tongues. But vs. 10-26 do not form a continuation of the table of nations of ch. 10; they present the genealogy of the patriarchal line from Shem to Abraham. Chapter 10 sets forth the racial relationship of the various tribes and nations and their common descent from Noah, whereas ch. 11:10-26 presents the exact descent of God’s chosen people through the many intervening generations. This is a continuation of the list of generations from Adam to Noah as given in ch. 5. The first four descendants of Shem, already enumerated in the Shemite part of the table of nations, are repeated here to show the direct descent of the Terahites through Peleg.
Shem was an hundred years old. This statement shows that Shem was two years younger than Japheth (see on ch. 5:32).
The list doubtless presents personal, not tribal, names; for it gives the exact age of each man at the birth of the son through whom the line continues, and his length of life thereafter. Although names such as Arphaxad or Eber are also tribal names, as in ch. 10:21, 22, that does not contradict the fact that the men here named were real individuals.
11. Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad. Inasmuch as the formula used by Moses in vs. 10 and 11 is a pattern for the brief biographical sketches that follow, it is not necessary to comment in detail on vs. 12-26. A notable difference between the formula used here and one of ch. 5 is the omission of the total age of each person listed in ch. 11. Nothing is lost, however, because in each case the total age can easily be computed by adding the years of a man’s age at the birth of the son to the remaining years of his life. Moses’ reason for making this difference between the style of the two lists is not known.
12. Arphaxad. See on ch. 10:22. Prior to the Flood the average age of paternity had been 117 years (the lowest 65, the highest 187 years), but thereafter it decreased to 30-35 years, reaching unusual heights only in the cases of Terah and Abraham.
The same decrease is seen in the total ages of men after the Flood. Although Noah himself reached the antediluvian age of 950 years, Shem’s age was only 600 and that of his son Arphaxad but 438 years. In succeeding generations the process continued, so that Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham, lived to be only 148 years of age. This greatly abbreviated life span may have been due partly to climatic changes. More important still was the change in diet from vegetarian to one including the flesh of animals (PP 107; CD 391). With each succeeding generation the human race was further and further removed from the vigorous physical heritage of Adam and from the invigorating fruit of the tree of life.
13. Salah. “The one sent forth.” This is a Semitic name, used also among the Phoenician colonists of Carthage in Northern Africa.
14. Eber. “The one who passes over.” Inasmuch as Eber’s descendants were to cross the Euphrates and migrate toward Syria and Palestine, this name may indicate prophetic insight on the part of his parents (see on ch. 10:21).
18. Reu. Meaning “friend” or “friendship.” It is possibly an abbreviation of Reuel, “friend of God,” the name of several Bible characters (Gen. 36:4; Ex. 2:18; Num. 2:14).
20. Serug. May mean “the one interlaced,” “the entangled one,” or “vine branch.” Which meaning was intended is uncertain.
22. Nahor. “The snorter.” Perhaps there may have been some impediment in his speech.
24. Terah. Without meaning in Hebrew, but in the related Ugaritic language, “bridegroom.”
26. Terah lived seventy years. This text seems to imply that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, born when their father Terah was 70 years old. That such was not the case is evident from the following considerations. Terah died in Haran at the age of 205 years (ch. 11:32). Abram journeyed to Canaan at the age of 75 (ch. 12:4). Abram’s call to leave Haran came after his father’s death, as explicitly stated in Acts 7:4.
Abram cannot then have been older than 75 at the death of his father, and Terah was at least 130 years old when Abram was born. Therefore, ch. 11:26 means that Terah began to beget sons when he was seventy years old. Youngest of the three sons, Abram is mentioned first because of his importance as ancestor of the Hebrews. Although it is not certain which of the two remaining sons of Terah, Nahor or Haran, was the elder, the fact that Nahor married Haran’s daughter (ch. 11:29) may point to Haran as Nahor’s senior (cf. on ch. 5:32).
Abram. “Father of elevation” or “exalted father,” pointing to his honored position as ancestor of God’s chosen people. His name was later changed by God to Abraham (ch. 17:5). The name appears in Egyptian records as that of an Amorite ruler of a Palestinian city at the very time Abram lived. It appears also in a contemporary cuneiform document from Babylonia, showing that the name was not uncommon.
Nahor. This son of Terah was named after his grandfather.
Haran. This name has no meaning in Hebrew. It is similar to Haran, Charan, the city where Terah settled. The name of the city, related to an Assyrian root word meaning “highway,” may indicate its location astride one of the principal trade routes between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean.
As with the antediluvian chronology, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX credit patriarchs from the Flood to the birth of Abram with considerably longer lives than do the Hebrew text and English translations based upon it (see on ch. 5:32). Whereas the KJV has 352 years between the Flood and Abram’s birth, the Same LXX, 1,132 or 1,232 (according to variant readings; see p. 180).
The LXX insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah may, however, be justified. In this the LXX is confirmed by Luke, who also lists Cainan in this position (Luke 3:35, 36). In spite of apparent disagreement between Moses (and 1 Chron. 1:24) on the one hand and Luke and the LXX on the other, no real difficulty exists. The Scriptures contain numerous and striking instances of the omission of names from genealogical lists. In tracing his own ancestry back to Aaron, Ezra for instance, omits at least six names (see Ezra 7:1-5; cf. 1 Chron. 6:3-15).
Centuries later Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus omits four kings of Judah, and possibly other ancestors of our Lord (see on Matt. 1:8, 17). Moses’ possible omission of Cainan from the list of Gen. 11:10-26 should not therefore be considered an inaccuracy, but rather an example of what was a common practice among Hebrew writers.
Whatever may be the case, the list as given by Moses must be considered at least fairly complete. Ellen G. White refers (PP 125) to an “unbroken line” of righteous men—from Adam to Shem—who passed down the knowledge of God that Abram inherited. This has been taken by some to imply that Abram must have been instructed by Shem personally; if so, then Abram was born some years before Shem’s death, which is dated 500 years after the Flood.
the chronology of genesis 11
| Hebrew
|
| Samaritan
|
| LXX
|
| Josephus |
| Age at son’s birth | Rest of years | Age at son’s birth | Rest of years | Age at son’s birth | Rest of years | Age at son’s birth |
Shem (Age 2 yrs. after the Flood) | 100 | 500 | 100 | 500 | 100 | 500 | (omits) |
Arphaxad | 35 | 403 | 135 | 303 | 135 | 430* | 135 |
Cainan |
|
|
|
| 130 | 330 |
|
Salah | 30 | 403 | 130 | 303 | 130 | 330 | 130 |
Eber | 34 | 430 | 134 | 270 | 134 | 370* | 134 |
Peleg | 30 | 209 | 130 | 109 | 130 | 209 | 130 |
Reu | 32 | 207 | 132 | 107 | 132 | 207 | 130 |
Serug | 30 | 200 | 130 | 100 | 130 | 200 | 132 |
Nahor | 29 | 119 | 79 | 69 | 179* | 129* | 120 |
Terah | 70 | 135 | 70 | 75 | 70 | 135 |
|
Terah (at Abram’s birth) |
130 |
75 |
70 |
135 |
130 |
75 |
70 |
Those who arrive at this conclusion from the above passage infer that it upholds the Hebrew against both the Samaritan and LXX chronologies of the period, and renders impossible any considerable number of omissions from Moses’ genealogical list. Until more definite information becomes available the chronology of events prior to the birth of Abram should be considered approximate. With the advent of the patriarch Abram we reach a more solid foundation on which to build a chronology.
27. Terah. Up to this point Moses has narrated the history of all mankind. Henceforth the inspired record concerns itself almost exclusively with the history of but one family, the chosen people of God. Throughout the remainder of the OT attention is generally given to other nations only as they come in contact with God’s people.
Haran begat Lot. Lot, “the concealed one.” Lot is introduced because of the role he is to play as Abram’s companion in the land of Canaan and as ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites.
28. Haran died before his father. Literally, “in the face of his father,” meaning “while his father was still alive,” or, “in the presence of his father.” This is the first mention (though not necessarily the first case) of a son having died before his father.
Ur of the Chaldees. As shown by literary documents and recent excavations, the city of Haran’s nativity had a long and glorious history. The ruins of Ur have long been known under the modern name Tell el-Muqayyar, which is situated about halfway between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf. Between 1922 and 1934 a joint British-American expedition carried out what have proved to be among the most fruitful of all Mesopotamian excavations. Royal tombs of an early dynasty gave up their fabulous store of treasures. The well-preserved ruins of houses, temples, and a temple tower have provided a wealth of material from which we may reconstruct the checkered history of this city which played so important a role from the dawn of history to the time of the Persian Empire. At the beginning of the second millennium b.c., when Abram lived there, the city possessed an exceptionally high culture. Houses were well constructed, and usually two stories high. Rooms on the ground floor were grouped around a central courtyard, and a staircase led up to the second story. The city had an efficient sewage system, which is more than some cities in that country can boast even today. In the schools of Ur reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography were taught, as the many school exercises that have been recovered make evident. In the OT this city is usually called “Ur of the Chaldees,” an expression that has not yet been found in the cuneiform texts of Mesopotamia. There it is simply called “Ur.” It is, however, known that the region of Ur was later inhabited by Aramaic Chaldean tribes, who may have come somewhat earlier (see on ch. 10:22). These tribes were closely related to the family of Terah, and both were descendants of Arphaxad. The memory of this relationship was kept alive by referring back to the original family home as Ur in Chaldea, or “Ur of the Chaldees.”
The advanced cultural level of Ur in Abram’s time puts to silence the sneers of those who would stigmatize Abram as an ignorant nomad. His youth was spent in a highly cultured and sophisticated city as the son of one of its wealthy citizens, and without doubt he was a well-educated man.
Abram must, as well, have been acquainted with the religious life of Ur, which, as excavations have shown, was polytheistic. Joshua states that Terah, Abram’s father, had served other gods in Ur (Joshua 24:2). We are led to assume that Terah’s other sons did likewise, for Rachel, Jacob’s wife, stole idols from her father, Laban, who was a grandson of Abram’s brother Nahor (Gen. 31:19). It is a miracle that Abram remained untouched by the pagan influences surrounding him.
29. Abram and Nahor took them wives. Nahor’s wife, Milcah, was a daughter of his brother Haran and therefore his own niece. Abram’s wife, Sarai, was his half sister, a daughter of Terah by another wife than Abram’s mother (see ch. 20:12). Marriage with a half sister, and with other close relatives, was afterward forbidden by the Mosaic civil code, though apparently still permitted in Abram’s time (see Lev. 18:6, 9, 14).
Iscah. It is not clear why Iscah, another daughter of Haran, is mentioned here. Following an old Jewish tradition, some commentators have seen the name as another name of Sarai, Abram’s wife. Others think she was the wife of Lot. There is no factual basis for any such suppositions.
30. Sarai was barren. This statement seems to imply a contrast with Milcah, Sarai’s sister-in-law (see ch. 24:24), and foreshadows the great importance of Sarai’s childlessness in the trial of Abram’s faith.
31. They went forth. The Scriptures make it clear that Abram was the one to whom God revealed Himself in Ur of the Chaldees, and not to Terah, as might be inferred from this passage (PP 127). Stephen told his hearers that Abram had left “Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,” in response to an explicit command addressed to him personally of God (Acts 7:2, 3). God later reminded Abram that He had brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 15:7), not out of Haran (see also Neh. 9:7). We conclude that Abram’s call occurred in two stages. The first call, when he lived at Ur, was to leave his ancestral tribe, but the second, at Haran, was to forsake his immediate relatives, even his father’s house (see Gen. 12:1). When the first call came to Abram, he obeyed immediately and left the old environment to find a new home in the country God promised to provide for him. He must have had considerable influence over his father, Terah, his brother Nahor, and his nephew Lot, because they all chose to accompany him. Nahor is not mentioned as one of those who left Ur with Terah and Abram, but if he did not go at this time he must have followed a little later (see ch. 24:10). Although Abram was the one to whom the call came at Ur, he still lived under his father’s roof and would look to his father to take the initiative should he be willing to do so. Terah evidently consented and, as head of the house, led out in making the move. Oriental propriety would require that Terah be given credit for acting as head of his house. It would seem most inappropriate to say that Abram took his father Terah.
To go into the land of Canaan. This indicates that Canaan was their destination from the very beginning. There were two possible routes of travel from Ur in southern Mesopotamia to Canaan. One route lay directly across the great Arabian Desert, but a large caravan of flocks, herds, and many servants could not possibly traverse such terrain. The other route lay up the Euphrates, across the narrow desert of northern Syria, and then through the Orontes valley southward into Canaan. This was obviously the way by which they must travel.
They came unto Haran. Haran is situated on the Balikh river in northern Mesopotamia, halfway between Ur and Canaan. The reason for this interruption of the journey is not given, but it may have been occasioned by the attractiveness of the region, or more likely by the advancing age and feebleness of Terah. For the greater part of the family Haran became a permanent place of abode, which implies, perhaps, that the attractiveness of the region may have led to the original decision to stop there. The Balikh and Chabur valleys contain fertile pastureland. It is possible that the whole region was sparsely populated, and seemed to offer fine possibilities for increasing the wealth of the family before they proceeded on to Canaan. Whatever the reason may have been, Terah and his family camped at a place they called Haran, perhaps in honor of their son, and brother, who had died in Ur. Because of a slight difference between the Hebrew spelling of the name of Terah’s son Haran and that of the city Charan the relationship of the two is uncertain.
Evidence of how strongly the Terahites took root in their new home is plainly seen in the fact that several of their family names remained attached to cities of the region for centuries, and in some instances for millenniums. Haran, an important city during the second and first millenniums b.c., may have been named in honor of Haran, as suggested above. Peleg’s memory lived on in the name of the city Paliga, at the mouth of the Chabur River. Nahor gave his name to Nahor’s city (ch. 24:10, the later Til-Nahiri, near Haran. Serug’s name is reflected in the neighboring town of Sarugi, and the site Til-sha-turahi on the Balikh River may perpetuate the name of Terah. These place names are clear evidence of the fact that the family of Terah occupied this region in ancient times.
32. Terah died in Haran. How long Terah lived in Haran is not indicated. In view of Abram’s proverbial readiness to obey God, it seems most unlikely that he would have remained in Haran for many years, knowing that the Lord wanted him to go to Canaan, except on account of his father’s age or illness. It is more likely that Terah halted for a season at the Balikh River to restore his wasted powers, than that the attractiveness of the region led him to forget his objective. Filial piety, under such circumstances, would keep Abram watching solicitously over his father. All would thus have remained in Haran in anticipation of resuming their journey upon Terah’s recuperation. When he died Abram and Lot went forward with their original plan, but other members of the family were bewitched by the fertility of the region and were unwilling to leave.
Terah, like Moses some centuries later, failed to enter the Land of Promise. We are forcibly reminded of our pilgrim state by the fact that many of God’s faithful ones die on their way to the heavenly Canaan. The seriousness of Terah’s death, however, was as nothing in comparison to Nahor’s decision to remain in Haran. He and his family voluntarily separated themselves from God’s promises by refusing to accompany Abram to the Promised Land. As a result, they and their descendants finally vanish from the stage of history, while Abram and his posterity remain for centuries the recipients of God’s special favor and the channel of His blessing for the world.
1. Get thee out. Henceforward Abram is the hero of the Genesis narrative. This is the first recorded divine revelation to Abram, although it is known from Acts 7:2 that God had appeared to him at least once previously. The word of Jehovah begins with a command, continues with a promise, and ends with a blessing. These three significant aspects characterize every manifestation of God to man. The promises of God are fulfilled and His blessings received only as His commands are obeyed. Men are usually desirous of sharing God’s blessings and realizing His promises without cooperating with His requirements.
The Lord’s call required Abram to make a complete break with the past. He not only had to leave the land of the two rivers, Mesopotamia, in which Ur as well as Haran was situated, but also had to give up family ties and even his father’s house, never to return to those of his own blood and race. It was a severe test. Haran and Ur shared the same civilization and standards of living. All this would change immediately when he should leave the land of the two rivers and cross over to Syria and Palestine. Instead of fertile grazing lands he would find a heavily wooded and mountainous country. Instead of living among related and highly civilized peoples, he would be sojourning among tribes of a materially lower culture and an especially degraded religion.
It certainly must not have been easy for Abram to sever all ties with his beloved homeland, a land in which he had spent all of his life and which was hallowed by many tender associations. A youth may leave his native land with little regret, but to a man 75 years of age such a decision is not easy.
A land that I will shew thee. Genesis 11:31 indicates that Abram’s original destination had been Canaan. Obviously, God must have specified Canaan as the land toward which he should direct his steps. Upon this occasion (ch. 12:1) Canaan is not mentioned, but it is clear that Abram knew Canaan to be the place where God wanted him to go. He set out with Canaan in mind (v. 5). Paul’s statement in Heb. 11:8 that Abram “went out, not knowing whither he went” apparently refers to the fact that henceforth he would have no certain dwelling place, but was to be a pilgrim and a stranger (see Heb. 11:9; 4T 523). Henceforth God would guide him day by day, and he would never know long in advance what the future might bring.
2. Make of thee a great nation. Abram’s compensation for leaving family and homeland behind is announced. Abram no doubt wondered how this promise would meet its fulfillment, in view of the fact that he was childless, and not a young man. God could not mean that Abram’s servants, the shepherds an overseers of his flocks, would constitute the promised nation. How did Abram understand the word “great”? Did it imply numerical strength, or influence, or greatness in spiritual things? Only the eye of faith, fixed upon the promises of God, could penetrate the future and behold things that the natural eye could not see.
I will bless thee. This promise included both temporal and spiritual blessings, particularly the latter. Paul clearly includes justification by faith among the blessings that rested on Abram (Gal. 3:8).
Make thy name great. True greatness was to result from compliance with God’s commands and cooperation with His divine purpose. The builders of Babel had thought to make themselves “a name” by defying God, and yet not one of their names has survived. Abram, on the other hand, was simply to follow where God should lead, in order to win fame. The name Abram is common as a personal name even today, and untold millions of Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians have acclaimed him in times past, and still look back to him, as their spiritual ancestor.
3. I will bless. Such an assurance was the highest pledge of friendship and favor God could bestow upon Abram. God considered as done to Himself the insults and wrongs done to His friend and promised to make common cause with him, to share his friends and to treat his enemies as if they were His own. Abram was “the Friend of God” (James 2:23).
All families of the earth. The Hebrew word here translated “earth,” ‘’adamah, means, essentially, “ground,” or “soil.” All nations and all ages are included. It was the “ground” that had been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:17), the same ground out of which man had originally been made. That curse had come because of the unfaithfulness of one man (Rom. 5:12), and now all families of the “ground” were to receive blessing through the obedience of one who was found faithful. As his spiritual offspring, Christians today share in the blessing imparted to Abram (Gal. 3:8, 29). The blessing vouchsafed to him would finally unite divided families on earth, and change the dread curse pronounced upon the ground because of sin into a blessing for all men. All further promises to the patriarchs and to Israel either clarified or amplified the promise of salvation offered the entire human race in the first promise made to Abram.
4. So Abram departed. Abram cheerfully followed the Lord’s call, without arguing and without mentioning conditions under which he would obey. He simply “departed.”
Lot went with him. Of all the relatives of Abram only Lot and his family were willing to continue on to the Promised Land. Peter refers to him as “just Lot,” and a “righteous man” (2 Peter 2:7, 8). His desire to obey God as his uncle did made him willing, for the time at least, to share the hardships of the journey and the uncertainties of an insecure future.
Seventy and five years old. The giving of Abram’s age indicates that his departure for Canaan marked the beginning of a new and important era. He was already advanced in years when called upon to adapt himself to life in a new country, to its climate, and to the strange customs of a foreign people.
5. All their substance. Abram’s and Lot’s wealth consisted chiefly in large herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. Abram was a prosperous man (ch. 13:2), but his prosperity in no way proved to be a hindrance to his religious life. Although it is true that wealth often makes it more difficult for its possessors to qualify for the kingdom of God, it is by no means a fatal handicap (see Matt. 19:23-26). When a person of means considers himself a steward of God, and uses the wealth entrusted to him to the honor of God and to the advancement of His kingdom, wealth is a blessing and not a curse.
Souls. Heb. nephesh. The RSV here uses the word “persons.” Included in this company were some converts to the true God (PP 127). These converts attached themselves to the household of Abram and became his retainers. Both Abram and Lot are mentioned as possessing herdsmen (Gen. 13:7). That Abram could later rescue Lot with the help of 318 armed and trained retainers (see ch. 14:14) clarifies still further the fact that these “souls” were the members of his household (see on ch. 14:14).
Into the land of Canaan. The land of Canaan includes not only Palestine but also Phoenicia and southern Syria (see on ch. 10:19). Egyptian and north Syrian inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. use the term Canaan in this sense. Inasmuch as Abram was to settle in the southern part of Canaan—Shechem, Hebron, Gerar—the journey took him about 450 mi. from Haran. Owing to the fact that topographical features leave but few alternate possibilities, his route of travel may be traced rather exactly. Leaving the region of Haran, the great caravan must have moved slowly southward along the Balikh River until it reached the Euphrates, which it followed upstream for some 60 mi. From this point 80 mi. of desert must be crossed in order to reach the north Syrian river Orontes. The great oasis of Aleppo lies halfway between the Euphrates and the Orontes, and was probably used by Abram on his journey to give rest and drink to the weary animals and men. Reaching the Orontes, he presumably followed it upstream to the south, leading the great caravan through the Syrian plain, called Beqa today, which lies between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Passing the watershed whence the Orontes flows north and the Litani south, the latter was followed until the caravan reached Galilee with its rugged, hilly terrain.
6. Abram passed through the land. Palestine was heavily wooded at that time. Its roads are described in ancient Egyptian documents as being a nightmare to travelers. Progress of the caravan may have been very slow, in view of the great number of animals and people accompanying the patriarch. The journey was probably broken by frequent pauses for rest. Having crossed Galilee, the wanderers came to the plain of Esdraelon, in which there were already several powerful Canaanite cities, such as Megiddo and Taanach. Then they crossed the Carmel ridge and entered the hilly country that would later belong to Ephraim, and here made their first prolonged halt. This was probably done because the Lord told Abram (v. 7) that he had reached the end of his journey and was now in the land that had been promised him.
Sichem. This city is called Shechem elsewhere in the OT (Gen. 35:4; etc.). Situated at the eastern entrance to a narrow valley flanked by the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, it occupied a strategically important place. It is a deserted site today, called Balatah, close to Nablus. Excavations and documentary evidence prove that Shechem was a flourishing and fortified city early in the second millennium b.c., when Abram camped in its vicinity. One of the earliest Egyptian military expeditions into Palestine of which a clear record has been preserved was directed against this very city. The stele of an Egyptian warrior who served under King Sen-Usert III (1878-1840 b.c.) of the Twelfth Dynasty describes a campaign against Sekemem, the Egyptian name for Sichem or Shechem, and relates that the native Asiatics were defeated. At the time Abram entered the country of Canaan, Egypt exerted a great influence over its Canaanite neighbors. Though Egypt did not actually exercise political control over Canaan, the latter country was economically dependent upon Egypt, which had royal representatives in its principal cities. These commissioners guarded Egypt’s economic interests and played the role of advisers to the local Canaanite rulers. Such was the political situation Abram found in Canaan.
The plain of Moreh. The word “plain” is not an accurate rendering of the Heb. ’elon, literally, “a great tree.” RSV says “oak.” The word is presumably used here in a generic and collective sense, and may or may not refer to one particular tree. It has been suggested that a grove of oaks is meant. This view is supported by a later reference Moses makes to the same locality, using the plural form of ’elon, “trees” (KJV, “plains”), clearly indicating that Moreh possessed more than one such tree (Deut. 11:30). The grove itself has not been identified, but must have been in the immediate vicinity of Shechem, as this text and Deut. 11:29, 30 indicate.
Moreh means “teacher.” The ancient Jewish translators of the LXX rendered it by the Greek word hupselen, “lofty.” Commentators have attempted to explain the name Moreh as an indication that Abram understood he was to be “taught” there by God, or that the grove belonged to a teacher of fame.
The Canaanite. If Abram had expected to be led into an unpopulated land whose pastures he would not have to share with others, he was mistaken. For this reason, perhaps, the statement is added, “the Canaanite was then in the land.” Finding himself an alien amidst a strange people, Abram could not regard the land as his own and actually take possession of it (see Heb. 11:9, 13). This he could do only by faith.
7. The Lord appeared. This is the third divine revelation accorded Abram, the first one in Canaan. Its purpose was to comfort him and to inspire him anew with confidence and courage. After a long and arduous journey Abram arrived in the land promised as a home for him and his posterity, only to find it occupied by Canaanites. A message confirming the promises made at Ur and Haran would bring assurance that possession of the land would come in God’s own time and way.
Unto thy seed. The entire message consists of only five words in Hebrew, eight in the KJV. Although one of the shortest of divine revelations, it was nevertheless of great importance to Abram, now an alien in a strange country. Its brevity was in no way proportionate to its importance and value. It called for faith to believe that the Canaanites in their strongly fortified cities should be dispossessed and their country given to a childless old man. The apparent improbability of the realization of such a promise rendered it a strong test of the patriarch’s faith.
An altar. The soil hallowed by the presence of God, Abram dedicated as a place of worship to Him. The altar erected and sacrifices offered bore witness to the God of heaven, and silently protested against the idolatry round about. Abram thus publicly pledged allegiance to the true God. As the lord of a large household, he sensed also a responsibility toward his servants, to impress upon them a more perfect knowledge of the God he served (ch. 18:19). The sacrifice testified of Abram’s belief in the death of the Son of God as an atonement for sin.
8. Beth-el. In need of fresh pastureland, Abram moved from the vicinity of Shechem to the east of Bethel, 20 mi. farther to the south. Abram pitched his tent on one of the hilltops between the cities of Bethel and Ai. The city is here referred to by the name it bore in later times. It was still called Luz in Abram’s time (see ch. 28:19). This Canaanite city, now called Beitin, lies about 10 mi. north of Jerusalem. It played an important role in Jacob’s life (ch. 28:19; 35:1), and was one of the first cities of Canaan conquered by Joshua. During the period of the divided kingdom, one of the two idolatrous cult places of Israel was situated there (1 Kings 12:28, 29). Scholars have identified the present Et-Tell with Ai, because of the similarity of names, Ai being the Hebrew name for “ruin,” whereas Tell is the Arabic name for a ruined site. This identification is, however, questionable.
He builded an alter. Abram erected an altar, wherever he pitched his tent (see Gen. 12:7; 13:18), and conducted public worship for the members of his household and for pagans living nearby. Although the service was presumably simple, consisting essentially in prayer, the offering of a sacrificial animal, and doubtless an evangelistic appeal, the great number of retainers whom Abram had led to a knowledge of Jehovah must have made these occasions impressive (see ch. 14:14; 18:19). Many keep their faith secret, afraid to confess it, but not Abram. Wherever he went he confessed the One whom he trusted and obeyed. His altars dotting the Palestinian countryside became memorials to the one true God. The Canaanites, whose iniquity was not yet full (ch. 15:16), were thus made aquainted with the Creator of the universe, and by Abram’s precept and example were called upon to discard their idols and worship Him. The world’s first foreign missionary, Abram journeyed tirelessly through Palestine and preached God wherever he pitched his tent. Isaac and Jacob were also called of God to spend their lives in this land. Although these men were not always shining examples of truth, the Canaanites could not but see the difference between their own way of life and that of the Hebrews. When the time of their judgment should come they could not deny that God had provided them every opportunity to learn of Him.
9. Toward the south. Bethel was not to be Abram’s permanent home. He proceeded toward the “south,” Negeb, which retains this name to the present day. The Negeb was and still is a semiarid country lying to the south and southwest of the mountains, which in later times belonged to Judah. Since ancient times Beersheba, situated at the crossroads of several caravan routes, has been its chief city. Abram perhaps felt that the mountainous parts of Canaan, which were already occupied by the Canaanites, could not provide sufficient pasture for his own great flocks and those of Lot. With its sparse population and wide and open grazing land, the Negeb seemed to him more suitable.
10. There was a famine. Abram had scarcely passed through the Promised Land when a severe famine compelled him to leave it. Canaan, though naturally fertile, was subject to visitations of drought, especially in those years when the November and December rains, on which the country depended, either failed or were scanty (Gen. 26:1; 41:56; 1 Kings 17:1; Haggai 1:10, 11). The occurrence of this famine just at the time of Abram’s entering the land was an additional trial of his faith. It was to teach him lessons of submission, faith, and patience. He was to realize that even in the Promised Land food and blessings come from the Lord alone.
Abram went down into Egypt. Being in the south of Canaan, Abram found it natural to turn to Egypt, the country of plenty, to find sustenance. Although Egypt itself occasionally suffered from famine, because of failure of the Nile to overflow, it was known to surrounding countries as a haven of refuge in times of need. Ancient Egyptian records repeatedly mention the fact that Asiatics entered the country to feed their starving flocks. At times these visitors would remain in the country and become a menace to the natives. Amenemhet I (1991-1962 b.c.), first king of the Twelfth Dynasty, walled off his eastern frontier with the avowed purpose “not to allow the Asiatics to go down into Egypt, that they may beg for water after [their] customary manner so as to give their cattle to drink.” A later document, the report of a frontier official of the time of the Hebrew judges, mentions that Bedouins of Edom had been allowed to enter Egypt to keep themselves and their cattle alive.
The most famous record of a visit of Asiatics to Egypt at the time of Abram is a tomb painting for a nobleman under King Sen-Usert II (1897-1879 b.c.). It depicts the arrival of 37 Semitic Bedouins who had come to trade cosmetics with the Egyptians, and shows their features, colorful garments, weapons, and musical instruments. This unusual document is an important contribution to our understanding of Abram’s time. No modern artist preparing pictures of the patriarchal age can afford to neglect this contemporary painting of Abram’s time. This documentary evidence about Asiatics entering Egypt for trading purposes or to acquire food in times of want makes it easy to visualize Abram going down to the valley of the Nile to keep his herds and flocks alive (see p. 160).
12. This is his wife. Abram was to discover in Egypt that human cunning is worthless and that deliverance from fear and perplexity comes only from the Lord (Ps. 105:14, 15). Approaching Egypt Abram feared for his life on account of the beauty of Sarai, his wife. Since she was his half sister, he felt justified in asking her to pass herself off as his sister (see Gen. 20:12). The conduct of the Canaanites, as seen later in the case of the men of Sodom (ch. 19:4-11), is evidence that he had reason for his anxiety. His experience in Egypt shows even more clearly that, from a human point of view, his fears were well founded. But the precaution he took did not spring from faith. How could he expect to retain her as his wife when she herself had denied her marital status? How could he think to protect her more effectively as his sister than as his wife? His clever plan brought upon him the very thing he feared and hoped to avoid, even though as her alleged brother he was treated well by Pharaoh and given cattle and slaves as a token of royal pleasure and friendship (see on ch. 20:13-16). It is often thus with our supposedly “clever” schemes.
14. She was very fair. How could Sarai at the age of 65 have been as attractive as this incident suggests? It should be remembered that in Abram’s time the life span was twice what it is now, and Sarai, who died at the age of 127 (ch. 23:1), was therefore in middle age. The Pharaohs are known to have fancied the fairer complexion of foreign women, and to have secured Libyan, Hittite, Mesopotamian, and Palestinian girls for the royal harem.
15. Pharaoh’s house. The word “Pharaoh,” and Egyptian term literally meaning “great house,” was not originally a royal title but a term denoting the palace. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, under whose kings Moses wrote the book of Genesis, it became a term of respect designating the king. Similarly, the Sultan was called the Sublime Porte. Also, the President of the United States is sometimes referred to impersonally and indirectly as “the White House.” In later times the proper name of the king was added to his title, the earliest example of this use in the Bible occurring in the 10th century b.c. (see 2 Kings 23:29, “Pharaoh-nechoh”).
16. He had sheep. Of the domestic animals here mentioned, only the camel was still uncommon at this time. It was not entirely unknown, however, as a number of figurines of laden camels found in tombs of the third and second millenniums b.c. prove. The horse had not yet been introduced into Egypt, and is not mentioned. Archeology points to the Asiatic Hyksos, who ruled in Egypt more than a century, as introducing the horse and chariot. Moses’ mention of horses in Joseph’s time and not in Abram’s time is evidence of his accurate knowledge of Egypt.
17. The Lord plagued Pharaoh. Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. Though Abram had failed God, God intervened on his behalf. What the nature of these plagues was cannot be determined, but they were obviously of such a nature as to protect Sarai from dishonor and to convince Pharaoh that he should restore her to Abram. Sarai herself may have revealed her actual marital status, or God may have spoken directly to Pharaoh as He did later to Abimelech (see ch. 20:3).
This experience should have taught Abram to trust in God rather than in his own clever devices. It seems strange, however, to find him a little later making the same mistake, and even more strange to find his son Isaac trying the same artifice (see chs. 20:2; 26:7). That God should rescue his servants from circumstances of their own contriving is evidence of His mercy and love. Those who profess faith in Him may at times act unworthily of their calling, yet God often teaches their opponents to respect them. The Lord remains faithful toward His children even in their hours of unfaithfulness (see 2 Tim. 2:13). But, to act deliberately, in the anticipation that God will save us from untoward results, is presumption. To a temptation such as this Christ replied, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matt. 4:7).
18. Pharaoh called Abram. Pharaoh’s words of reproof imply that he would not have taken Sarai had he known her to be another man’s wife. His intentions were above reproach; his arrangements for making her his wife were entirely legitimate. Sarai had been taken to court in preparation for the wedding, but had not yet joined the king. And Abram, on his part, had accepted the customary dowry and other gifts in token of the king’s favor.
19. Take her, and go. Recognizing that the plagues had come upon him because of God’s displeasure, the monarch did not dare to deal harshly with Abram, but sought, rather, to mitigate the anger of God by providing him a safe-conduct from the country. The graciousness of Pharaoh and the mercy of God had humbled him, and in silence he acknowledged his guilt. What dishonor comes to the cause of God when His representatives, as the result of ill-advised and disgraceful courses of action, bring upon themselves well-earned reproof from men of the world!
1. Abram went up out of Egypt. It was in the mercy of God that Abram returned safely from Egypt with his wife, his family, and his possessions. The mention of Lot as returning with Abram prepares the reader for the succeeding account of relations between Lot and his uncle. Their immediate destination was the Palestinian southland, the Negeb which extends from Kadesh-barnea in the south to the area north of Beersheba, its chief city (see ch. 12:9).
2. Abram was very rich. The word here translated “rich” literally means “heavy” or “weighty,” used in the sense of being “loaded” with possessions. A wealthy man before he went to Egypt, Abram came back greatly increased in goods, owing to the generosity of Pharaoh. For the first time the Bible mentions silver and gold as precious metals, and their possession as making a man wealthy. Abram may have had silver when he left Mesopotamia, a country rich in this metal; but the gold probably came to him in Egypt, the richest god-mining country of antiquity. About the middle of the second millennium b.c. Asiatic rulers begged for gold in almost every letter they wrote to the Pharaohs. It was commonly believed that “gold was as plentiful in Egypt as stones.” The tombs of some Phoenician rulers of Byblos, discovered in the 1920’s, contained many precious gifts from Egyptian kings of the 19th and 18th centuries b.c. Beautiful vessels, boxes, ornaments, and other luxury objects may have been included in the present Abram received from Pharaoh.
3. To Beth-el. Traversing the southland, Abram retraced his steps to the vicinity of Bethel, where he had camped previously. The word here translated “journeys” means “stations,” or places where he pitched his tent. This indicates, not a direct, continuous journey from Egypt through the southland to Bethel, but a trek made in gradual stages from one pastureland to another, in the general direction of Bethel (see ch. 12:8).
4. The place of the altar. Moses emphasizes Abram’s return to a place in which he had previously conducted public worship. Bethel was dear to his heart because of the sacred memory of communion he there had enjoyed with the Lord. Perhaps, also, he expected to find ready ears and willing hearts among the people of the vicinity, who must have remembered his earlier sojourn there. The site of each encampment of Abram was marked by an altar at which roving Canaanites learned of the true God and where, after Abram had moved on, they returned to worship Him (PP 128). An important point to consider in choosing a home is “the place of the altar.”
6. Their substance was great. The uncle’s prosperity overflowed upon his nephew. Lot, the only other member of Terah’s family who had obeyed God’s command to go to Canaan, shared in the blessing promised Abram. Inasmuch as the land was already occupied by the Canaanites, and the mountains of Canaan were heavily wooded, as ancient records show, there was scant permanent grazing land for the large flocks and herds of the newcomers.
7. Strife. The scarcity of available pastureland, and sometimes of water as well, resulted in strife between Abram’s shepherds and those of Lot. Each group naturally wanted to see his master’s possessions prosper.
The Canaanite and the Perizzite. The Perizzites are mentioned, together with the Canaanites, in other passages (see Gen. 34:30; Judges 1:4, 5), and are frequently enumerated with the various other tribes that occupied Canaan in patriarchal times (Gen. 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; etc.). Many commentators have thought the Perizzites to be village dwellers (Heb. perazi, “the inhabitants of the open land,” Esther 9:19), in contrast to the Canaanites who dwelt in walled cities. The relationship of the Perizzites to other nations of Palestine is uncertain, inasmuch as they do not appear either in the table of nations of ch. 10 or in non-Biblical sources.
8. Let there be no strife. The quarrels of the shepherds were probably reflected in Lot’s attitude and conduct. Anxious to avert discord and enmity between himself and his nephew, Abram proposed the separation of their flocks and herds as a solution to the difficulty. In view of the fact that Lot was his junior, and that the entire country had been promised to Abram, his dealings with Lot reflect a truly generous spirit. The nobility of soul revealed upon this occasion stands forth in sharp contrast to the weakness of character he had so recently exhibited in Egypt. Abram proved himself to be a man of peace.
We be brethren. Abram recognized the pernicious influence that hatred and strife between himself and Lot would have upon the surrounding nations. Nothing would have more effectively thwarted God’s plan to evangelize the nations of Canaan than continuous discord between the two families. Although Abram was the elder of the two, he took no advantage of his seniority of age and position to make preferential claims. His reference to himself and Lot as “brethren” was meant to assure his nephew equality of position and treatment. He sought to disperse any doubt Lot may have had regarding the honesty of his uncle’s intentions.
9. Is not the whole land before thee? Though appointed heir to the entire country, Abram manifested true humility by subordinating his own interests to those of Lot and so permitting him to take as much of the land as he wanted. Abram waived his own rights for the sake of peace, but in so doing earned our highest respect. He displayed a generosity of spirit, a nobility of mind, a character worthy of emulation. To do otherwise than he did would have been to follow the selfish principles that usually govern men in their dealings with one another. But a spiritual man lives according to higher principles and looks beyond the temporary advantages of this world to eternal gains. This Abram did by defeating Satan’s purpose to create discord and strife between him and his nephew.
10. All the plain of Jordan. Less noble than his uncle, Lot proceeded immediately to take advantage of the offer. In his mind he surveyed the country as far as he knew it. He had noticed that the plain of the Jordan, called in ancient times the Kikkar, today el-Ghor, was well watered. Lot, a citizen of Mesopotamia, where rivers and canals imparted great fertility to the land, could not have failed to compare his former homeland with the mountainous and seemingly less fertile country to which he had come. Abram had induced him to come to Canaan, he reasoned, and accordingly should see to it that he was comfortably settled.
Western Palestine does not possess any rivers worth the name. The only river of importance is the Jordan, and most of its tributaries flow from the east. With its source in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, the Jordan runs through what was once Lake Huleh in Upper Galilee, some 7 ft. above sea level. Falling then rapidly in altitude, it enters the Sea of Galilee 10 mi. south of Lake Huleh, 685 ft. below sea level. Leaving the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan flows for 65 mi., as the crow flies, to the Dead Sea. But in that distance it meanders 200 mi., entering the Dead Sea at an altitude of 1,275 ft. below sea level. Lying deeply embedded between the mountains of western Palestine and the high plateau of Transjordan, the whole valley of the Jordan has a tropical climate all the year round with a corresponding fertility.
Sodom and Gomorrah. For the first time the two wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are linked with Lot’s fortunes. These cities seem to have been situated to the south of the Dead Sea, which in the time of Abram was much smaller than now (see chs. 14:3 and 19:24, 25). Hence the valley in which these cities lay is probably included by Moses in the expression the “plain of the Jordan,” called in v. 12 simply the “plain.”
As the garden of the Lord. The fertile Jordan valley, with its tropical vegetation, seemed to compare favorably with what Moses had heard of the long-lost Paradise, and with the fertile Nile delta, which Lot and Abram had recently left.
11. Lot chose. Allured by its beauty and fertility and heedless of other considerations, Lot chose the Jordan valley as his future place of abode. Impelled by selfishness and guided only by his own inclinations and the prospect of temporal advantage, Lot made the fateful decision of his life. This decision led him through a series of unfortunate experiences which imperiled his life, his soul, and his family. Leaving Abram at Bethel, Lot and his family departed eastward.
12. Pitched his tent toward Sodom. Desirous of settling in the immediate neighborhood of the cities of the Jordan valley, in whose wealth he hoped to share, Lot stands in marked contrast to his uncle, who remained a wanderer throughout life (see Heb. 11:9). The experience of Lot is a lesson for the Christian who is tempted to choose earthly associates and temporal gain in exchange for eternal happiness. First he “beheld,” and then he “chose.” Leaving the Jordan valley, north of the Dead Sea, he pitched his tent toward Sodom, then moved into the city (see Gen. 14:12; 19:1). Though he himself was righteous, his fateful decision meant the loss of almost everything he held dear (PP 168).
13. The men of Sodom. It is clear that the men Lot chose for neighbors were already wicked when Lot made his home among them. The greatest depravity is often found among people situated in the most fertile lands and enjoying the advantages of an advanced civilization. Such is the ingratitude of human nature that where the gifts of God are most abundantly lavished, there men forget Him first (see Hosea 4:7; 10:1). It is one of the moral dangers of prosperity that men become so satisfied with the things of this present world that they feel no need of God.
14. Lift up now thine eyes. This is the fourth occasion on which the patriarch was addressed directly by God. Each of these occasions marked a crisis in his life. Evidently approving the separation of Lot from Abram, God again bade Abram survey the country, all of which would eventually belong to him and his posterity. The divine command, “Lift up now thine eyes,” must have reminded Abram of Lot, who had recently “lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan” (v. 10). Although Lot had chosen that portion which appeared to be the most favorable part of the land, Abram was told that in time it would all belong to his descendants.
15. For ever. The promise of God is immutable. As the seed of Abram were to exist before God forever, so Canaan was ever to be their homeland. This promise, originally made with respect to the literal descendants of Abram, is vouchsafed in turn to his true spiritual posterity, of the household of faith (see Gal. 3:29). This promise, therefore, did not preclude the expulsion of the unbelieving seed from the land of Canaan.
16. As the dust of the earth. This is a repetition of the previous promise that Abram should be the father of “a great nation” (ch. 12:2). The promise is expressed in the colorful imagery of the Orient, now comparing Abram’s seed to the innumerable dust of the earth, as at a later time to the stars of heaven (ch. 15:5).
18. The plain of Mamre. Obeying God’s directions, Abram set forth once more. If he believed the word of God literally, this journey took him gradually through the length and breadth of the land. Abram finally pitched his tent at a grove near Hebron. The Hebrew word ’elone, translated “plain” in the KJV, should be rendered “oaks” (see on ch. 12:6). Here it is used in the plural and clearly indicates the presence of a number of large trees. This grove belonged to an Amorite chieftain, Mamre, who later became the friend and ally of Abram (ch. 14:13, 24).
Which is in Hebron. The city of Hebron lies 22 mi. south of Jerusalem, on the way to Beersheba. It is a city of great antiquity, having been built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Num. 13:22). Since the date of the foundation of the Egyptian Tanis is not known, this chronological statement from the book of Numbers is unfortunately without meaning for us. The name Hebron was used at a later period. In the time of the patriarchs it was known as Kirjath-arba, or the city of Arba (see Gen. 23:2; Joshua 14:15). This is one of several instances in which Bible writers favored contemporary names in order to make the story more intelligible for their readers.
An altar unto the Lord. As earlier at Shechem (Gen. 12:7) and at Bethel (ch. 12:8), Abram again set up an altar. Each memorial to the true God expressed gratitude for His mercies and loyalty to His principles. That Abram’s Amorite and Hittite neighbors became his friends (chs. 14:13, 24; 23:7-17) may have been due to his wholesome influence upon them. Perhaps, also, they appreciated to some extent at least the fact that God’s blessing rested upon him, and felt they might share it with him (see ch. 12:3). There must have awakened in their hearts the conviction that the God Abram worshiped and served was indeed the true God, Creator of heaven and earth. Abram’s witness by precept and example was certainly not without results (PP 128).
1. It came to pass. The attitude of the scholarly world toward this chapter has been divided. Some have accepted it as a reliable ancient document based on historical facts. Others have considered it a story fabricated by a late Jewish writer with the purpose of glorifying the patriarch Abram. However, discoveries have shown that the setting, language, and proper names fit exactly into the early second millennium b.c., thus strengthening materially the position of those who believe in the historicity of the chapter. It is still impossible, however, to identify any of the kings listed with persons mentioned in non-Biblical sources, since very little is known of the political history of this period.
Amraphel king of Shinar. This king has customarily been identified with Hammurabi, the sixth and greatest king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Wherever Shinar is mentioned in the OT record it is used as a designation for Babylonia (see on ch. 10:10), a fact that would seem to suggest that Amraphel was a king of Babylonia. However, it is also possible to see in this Shinar the Shanḫara of cuneiform sources, which was in northwestern Mesopotamia. It seems, furthermore, chronologically impossible to identify Hammurabi with Amraphel. Although some scholars hold to the older dating of Hammurabi’s reign, the more recent view is that he ruled in either the 18th or 17th century b.c., which would place him more than a hundred years later than Abram. Linguistic identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi is also not without difficulties. Since about 1930 three more kings named Hammurabi have come to light, who lived in the same period: one of Ugarit, one of Aleppo, and another of an unidentified city. It is evident, therefore, that definite identification cannot as yet be made.
Arioch king of Ellasar. The name Arriwuk (Arioch) is attested in cuneiform texts as that of a son of King Zimrilim of the Mesopotamian city Mari, in the 18th century b.c. Though this is not the same individual as the king of Ellasar, the occurrence of the name Arioch in records from the post-Abramic period indicates that the story fits appropriately into that age. It is tempting to identify Ellasar with the city Larsa in Lower Mesopotamia. This has often been attempted in the past, but definite evidence is lacking.
Chedorlaomer king of Elam. A good Elamite name meaning “servant of [the goddess] Lagamar.” The names of several Elamite kings begin with the word kudur, “servant,” such as Kudur-Mabuk, Kudur-Nachunte, and Kudur-Ellil. The second part of Chedorlaomer is the Hebrew transliteration of the name of the Elamite goddess Lagamar. However, no Elamite king by the name Kudur-Lagamar is so far known from non-Biblical sources.
Tidal king of nations. Several Hittite kings bore this name, in the form of Tudhalia, but it is uncertain whether this particular king appears in any record outside of the Bible.
Although it is impossible to identify the four kings with certainty, the occurrence of all their names in the period in which Abram lived shows clearly that the account of ch. 14 is historical, not legendary.
2. Bera king of Sodom. There is less reason to expect to find the names of the city kings of the Jordan valley in non-Biblical documents than those of the great nations of the time. The four names given are, however, Palestinian and can be explained as such. In Arabic, Bera would mean “victor”; Birsha, “long man”; Shinab, “[the moon-god] Sin is father”; and Shemeber, “mighty of fame.”
3. The vale of Siddim. According to this text the valley of Siddim is to be identified with all or part of what is known in later times as the Salt Sea or Dead Sea. The northern two thirds of the present-day Dead Sea is very deep (500-1,128 ft.), and must have existed already in Abram’s time. The southern part is shallow, its depth nowhere exceeding 15 ft. Submerged trees show that this part of the Dead Sea was dry land in comparatively recent times. It is therefore reasonable to locate the “vale of Siddim” in the southern part of the Dead Sea, which became submerged in the course of time as the waters of the sea rose. It was rising gradually in modern times until irrigation shrank the Jordan inflow and lowered the amount reaching the Dead Sea. Since a number of streams flow into the southern portion of the sea in a region that is still very fertile, it is reasonable to assume that the whole valley now forming the southernmost part of the Dead Sea was once that exceptionally fertile plain that the Bible compares with Paradise and the Nile valley (ch. 13:10). In this region, then, the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar were presumably situated.
4. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer. Chedorlaomer was leader of the coalition of kings. It is shown that Elam was a great Mesopotamian power at the time of Abram. In alliance with other Asiatic rulers, Elam may have undertaken this western campaign in order to reopen its caravan route to the Red Sea. Inasmuch as western Palestine was under Egyptian influence, it was only natural for Asiatic powers to seek control of its trade routes. That more nations had been tributary to Chedorlaomer than the five city-states of Siddim is apparent from the following verses. Taxation may have been heavy, and when the various peoples had somewhat recovered from the previous campaign, they rebelled and ceased sending tribute annually to Mesopotamia.
5. In the fourteenth year. The revolt brought a punitive expedition by which it was hoped that the former situation might be restored. It is not necessary to presume that all the rulers named in v. 1 were personally present in the campaign. Ancient Oriental rulers always speak as if they had directed and won every battle singlehanded.
The Rephaims. The first battle took place in Bashan at the city Ashteroth Karnaim, the modern Sheikh Sa‘ad, about 22 mi. east of the Sea of Galilee. The Rephaim are frequently mentioned in early books of the Bible as one of the ancient peoples living mostly in trans-Jordan (cf. Deut. 2:11, margin; 3:11, 13; etc.).
The Zuzims. Neither this people nor the locality is mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and therefore cannot be identified, unless they were the Zamzummim of Deut. 2:20, who were later replaced by the Ammonites.
The Emims. The people who preceded the Moabites east of the Dead Sea and were displaced by them were called Emims (Deut. 2:10, 11). Shaveh Kiriathaim means the high plateau of Kiriathaim, the latter word being the name of a city which lay on a northern tributary of the river Arnon and was later assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Joshua 13:19).
6. The Horites. Proceeding southward, the victorious forces smote Horites, or Hurrians, who lived in the mountainous region south of the Dead Sea later taken over by the Edomites (Deut. 2:22). They pursued the defeated peoples as far as the desert of Paran, in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula.
7. En-mishpat, which is Kadesh. This passage mentions for the first time a desert oasis destined to play an important role in the history of the Israelites during their 40 years of wandering. Its full name was Kadesh-barnea (see Num. 32:8). The earlier name En-mishpat means “Spring of Judgment.”
The Amalekites, and also the Amorites. The Amalekites, desert tribes that roamed in the regions south of Palestine, were the next objective of the victorious forces, as were also the Amorites living west of the Dead Sea. Hazezon-tamar is identified in 2 Chron. 20:2 with En-gedi.
8. The king of Sodom. The next encounter took place to the southeast of Engedi, in the valley which is now covered by the southern part of the Dead Sea (see on v. 3). The five city-states joined forces and fought against the armies of the four northeastern kings.
10. Slimepits. This battlefield had apparently been chosen by the five local kings in order that they might profit by their knowledge of the geographical peculiarities of the region. Open asphalt wells are characteristic of Mesopotamia, but are nowhere found in Palestine or trans-Jordan today. In the southern part of the Dead Sea, however, considerable quantities of asphalt still rise to the surface and float on the water, one more proof that the “vale of Siddim” is now covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. The erupting asphalt, already a phenomenon in classical times, as Josephus, Strabo, Diodorus, and Tacitus testify, gave to the Dead Sea the name Lake Asphaltitis.
The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled. Their last attempt to resist the victorious forces of the great powers failed, as had all preceding ones, and the kings “fled, and fell there.” This latter phrase cannot mean that all the kings were killed, because v. 17 shows that at least the king of Sodom survived the battle. It simply designates their utter defeat.
12. They took Lot. The defeated cities were spoiled and their surviving inhabitants were carried away into captivity. Among them was Lot, with his family and all his possessions (see v. 16). This passage re-emphasizes the unfortunate results of Lot’s foolish choice (ch. 13:12, 13).
13. Told Abram the Hebrew. A fugitive, probably one of Lot’s servants, arrived at Abram’s dwelling near Hebron with a report of what had happened. Here for the first time Abram is called “the Hebrew,” designating him a descendant of Eber. Eber’s descendants were to be found all over the ancient Orient in the second millennium b.c., and were called Habiru in cuneiform inscriptions and ‘Apiru in Egyptians texts. As a descendant of Egyptian texts. As a descendant of Eber, Abram may have been known to the Amorites and Canaanites of Palestine as “the Hebrew.”
Confederate with Abram. The three Amorite brothers mentioned in this text as confederates of Abram were probably tribal heads. Abram had concluded with them a treaty of mutual assistance, as is seen from the designation they receive here, literally, “men of Abram’s covenant,” and from the fact that they aided Abram in his raid to rescue Lot.
14. His trained servants. Abram is the only patriarch to appear in the role of military leader. He lost no time in making preparations to rescue his nephew, but set out in pursuit immediately, with his own retainers and those of his Amorite friends (v. 24). The Hebrew word here translated “trained servants” occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but is identified in a letter from Taanach in the 15th century b.c. as a Canaanite word meaning “retainers.” Born in Abram’s house, his 318 “trained servants” could be trusted. This suggests that Abram possessed more than 318 male servants, if those obtained during his recent sojourn in Egypt (ch. 12:16; 16:1) are not included (see PP 141). How many followers and servants of Abram’s three friends followed him on his rescue mission is unknown, but they probably constituted a substantial addition to his army. The idea that Abram’s forces could defeat so powerful an enemy has often been the target of criticism. History records, however, many examples of great armies being defeated by smaller forces. Furthermore, ancient armies were very small by modern standards. At the battle at Megiddo in the 15th century b.c. Thutmose III killed 83 enemies and took 340 captives, and considered this a great victory. The Tell el ‛Amarna Letters of 14th-century Palestine speak of armed forces of 40 to 50, sometimes of only 10 to 20 men, with which Palestinian city kings successfully defended their cities. For a consideration of the Tell el ‛Amarna Letters, see p. 106. These documents have added much to our knowledge of 14th-century Palestine.
Pursued them unto Dan. This later name is here substituted, as in similar instances already noted, for its older name Laish (see Joshua 19:47, also on Gen. 47:11). The city of Laish lay at the foot of Mt. Hermon, about 10 mi. north of Lake Huleh, and formed in later times the northernmost border of Israel. The expression “from Dan even to Beer-sheba” designated the limits of Canaan (see 2 Sam. 17:11; etc.). The victorious army of the Mesopotamia kings, being on its homeward march, was already well on its way, and Abram had to traverse all of Palestine before he overtook it.
15. Smote them. In a false sense of security the undefeated Mesopotamian army had relaxed its vigilance. Approaching the enemy, Abram divided his forces into several groups and surprised them by a night attack. As Abram’s raiders fell upon the enemy’s camp from different directions, so much confusion resulted that the powerful Mesopotamian army fled, leaving all the spoil and captives behind.
Pursued them unto Hobah. Hobah has not been definitely identified, but Damascus lies some 40 mi. northeast of Dan. Abram pursued the fleeing enemies far enough to prevent them from regrouping their forces and turning again to attack him. His victory was complete.
16. He brought back all. Though apparently possessing military genius, Abram certainly did not set out in pursuit of the professional armies of the conquering kings without first placing himself under the direction and protection of God. His fearless faith and unselfish spirit were amply rewarded. Whether Paul included Abram when he spoke of heroes of faith who “waxed valiant in fight” (Heb. 11:34) is not certain.
17. The king of Sodom. Bera, who had escaped from the battle in the vale of Siddim, received word of Abram’s victory and went forth to meet him upon his return. The meeting took place in a valley anciently known as Shaveh, but in later times “the king’s dale.” This seems to be “the king’s dale” of 2 Sam. 18:18, and if so, is possibly to be identified with the Kidron valley (PP 703), later called the valley of Jehoshaphat. This valley lies at the foot of Mt. Zion, where David’s palace was later built.
18. Melchizedek. The priest-king of Salem joins the king of Sodom in welcoming Abram. In the days of Abram, Jerusalem was known as Salem, or Shalem, “peace,” or “security” (see Ps. 76:2). The city of Jerusalem is first attested in Egyptian records of the 19th century b.c., and was then ruled by Amorite kings. Jerusalem means “city of peace,” and Melchizedek, “my king is righteous” or “King of righteousness,” as the name is interpreted in, Heb. 7:2. While Sodom’s king came to meet Abram with the purpose of obtaining the release of his subjects (Gen. 14:21), Melchizedek came to bless the victorious commander.
Bread and wine. These were the chief products of Canaan. The purpose of Melchizedek’s meeting Abram with bread and wine has been the subject of much speculation. Some have thought that these were presented to Abram and his soldiers as refreshments, others consider them symbolic of the transfer of the soil of Canaan to the patriarch. Most likely they were simply a token of gratitude to Abram for recovering peace, freedom, and prosperity to the land.
He was the priest. The occurrence of the term “priest,” here used for the first time, implies the existence of a regularly constituted form of sacrificial worship.
The most high God. Hebrew ’El-‘Elyon, this name for God occurs only here and in v. 22. The first part of this word, ’El, from the same root as ’Elohim, signifies the “Strong One.” It is seldom applied to God without some qualifying attribute, as in ’El-Shaddai, “God Almighty,” or ’Eloe-Yisra’el, “God of Israel.” The second term, ‘Elyon, occurring frequently in the OT (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; etc.), describes God as “the Highest,” “the Exalted,” “the Supreme One.” It is surprising indeed to find among the wicked Canaanites and Amorites of Abram’s time a local ruler who was not only loyal to the true god but also officiated in a priestly capacity (cf. Ex. 2:16). It shows that God still had His faithful ones scattered here and there. Although in the minority, God’s true servants had by no means vanished from the face of the earth. God has never been without faithful witnesses, however dark the period or however wicked its people.
Bible commentators have speculated much about the person of Melchizedek, a priest-king who appears suddenly in the Biblical narrative only to disappear again into the impenetrable obscurity of ancient history. Such speculation is almost entirely without value. “Melchizedek was not Christ” (EGW, RH, Feb. 18, 1890), but his work prefigured that of Christ (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 6:20 to 7:21; DA 578). His unexpected appearance makes him in a certain sense a timeless figure, and his priesthood a type of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
19. And he blessed him. In pronouncing the blessing of “the most high God” upon Abram, Melchizedek acts in the role of a true priest (see on v. 20). The blessing itself is clothed in poetical language and consists of two parallelisms.
20. Tithes of all. That Abram, and not Melchizedek, was the tithepayer is clearly stated in Heb. 7:4. Giving the tenth of the booty taken from the enemy was an acknowledgment of the divine priesthood of Melchizedek, and proves that Abram was well acquainted with the sacred institution of tithe paying.
This is the first mention of tithing, repeatedly recognized throughout both the OT and the NT as a divine requirement (see Gen. 28:22; Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:21-28; Neh. 13:12; Matt. 23:23; Heb. 7:8). That Abram paid tithe shows clearly that this institution was not later, temporary expedient to provide for the sacrificial services, but that it was a divinely instituted practice from the earliest times. By returning to God one tenth of his income the believer recognizes God’s ownership over all his property. Abram, of whom God testified that he had kept His commandments, statutes, and laws (Gen. 26:5), performed all his religious duties conscientiously. One of them was to return to God a tenth of his increase. In this act the father of the faithful set an example for all those who desire to serve God and share in the divine blessing. As in days of old, God’s promises for faithfulness in tithe paying are still valid (see Mal. 3:10). God is still ready to fulfill His promises and richly bless those who, like Abram, return to him a faithful tithe of their increase.
21. The king of Sodom. Though arriving first (v. 17), the king of Sodom appears to have deferred to the greater personage, Melchizedek, and to have witnessed the interview between him and Abram. Now, he advanced with his request for the release of his subjects, who, according to the rules of ancient warfare, had become the property of Abram and his allies.
22. I have lift up mine hand. Abram made his statement with uplifted hand, the sign of an oath, a common form of swearing (see Deut. 32:40; Eze. 20:5, 6; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5; 6). Thus doing, he called upon the same “most high God,” in whose name Melchizedek had blessed him, so indicating that the God of Melchizedek, the possessor of heaven and earth, was his God also (see v. 19).
23. I will not take any thing. Abram, so generous in dealing with his nephew (ch. 13:8, 9), exhibited the same spirit of generosity toward the king of a wicked city. He returned not only all the men, women, and children whom he had rescued, but also all the spoil of war which was in his hand. Though not averse to accepting presents from heathen monarchs (ch. 12:16), the patriarch could not, in marked contrast to Lot, consent to share in the wealth of the impious Sodomites. The only thing Abram could not return was that portion of the spoil his retainers had used as food and what belonged to his confederates.
When Abram refused for himself the spoils offered by the king of Sodom, he demonstrated a loftier hope than that which motivates the children of this world. He was ready to give us his own rights, without hindering others in the realization of theirs. He permitted his own young men to take their subsistence, and his allies their portion. They would receive only what was their due. But Abram, on his part, was not mindful of these things. He stood upon a higher plane, looking for “a better country, that is, an heavenly” (Heb. 11:16), and could afford to think lightly of every earthly good. Though in the world, his hopes and desires were not of it. Children of faith are marked by a certain greatness of mind and purpose that enables them to live above the world.
1. The word of the Lord. This new revelation of the Lord differs from previous ones, both in form and in substance, and constitutes another distinct turning point in Abram’s life. The remarkable phrase “the word of the Lord [Yahweh, Jehovah],” afterward so common in the Scriptures (Ex. 9:20; Num. 3:16; Deut. 34:5; 1 Sam. 3:1; Jer. 1:4, 11; etc.), is used here for the first time. This phrase, inseparably connected with the work of prophets, is most fitting for this divine revelation to Abram (see Gen. 15:4, 5, 13-16, 18-21), the more so since God Himself refers to Abram as a prophet (ch. 20:7).
In a vision. Though this is not the first vision recorded in the Bible, the word “vision” is here used for the first time. The revelations of God occurred in different ways, whether to patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, or apostles: (1) By the personal manifestation of the second person of the Godhead, afterward incarnate for the salvation of mankind, for example, Deut. 34:10. (2) By an audible voice, sometimes accompanied by the appearance of symbols, as at Jesus’ baptism, in Matt. 3:16, 17. (3) By the ministry of angels appearing as human beings and performing miracles to accredit their mission, as to Samson’s mother, in Judges 13:3-7. (4) By the powerful agency of the Spirit of God upon the mind, imparting to it a clear conception and strong persuasion of the truth of the things perceived, as with Paul, in Acts 20:23. (5) By dreams, as in Jacob’s experience, in Gen. 28:11-15. (6) By visions occurring by either day or night, as in the instance discussed here or that of Balaam, in Num. 24:4, 16. The last two were the more common forms God used to communicate His will to men. This accords with the divine pronouncement, “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream” (Num. 12:6).
Fear not. These reassuring words were designed to set Abram’s mind at ease. The Mesopotamian kings might return to avenge their defeat, or the heathen Canaanites, already jealous of his growing power, might attack. But God promised to be his “shield,” the symbol of protection in ancient warfare (see Ps. 3:3), and his “reward.” Abram had experienced both during the preceding military expedition, for God had protected him in battle and rewarded him with victory. He must believe that God would continue to do for him what He had done in the past.
2. I go childless. Abram’s fear was not so much due to possible military reprisals as to the fact that he was still without an heir. From more immediate problems his mind reverted to the divine promise that had brought him to Canaan in the first place. How could God’s promise come true that he, childless as he was, should become the ancestor of a great nation? The combination, Lord God, ’Adonai Yahweh, occurs here for the first time. Recognizing in God his Lord, Ruler, and Monarch, Abram addresses Him as ’Adonai, “my Lord,” and adds to it the divine personal name Jehovah.
The steward of my house. Mesopotamian records, particularly from the city of Nuzi in patriarchal times, have shed a welcome light on this hitherto obscure passage. These records show that wealthy but childless couples might adopt one of their slaves to become the heir to all their property, and also to care for them in old age. The rights and duties connected with adoption were written, sealed, and then signed by several witnesses as well as by both parties to the agreement. Abram feared that no other course was left to him than to follow the common practice of the time and adopt his most trusted servant, Eliezer of Damascus, as his legal son and heir. This thought is expressed first in the Hebrew phrase which the KJV translates “steward of my house,” literally “the son of the possession of my house,” meaning “the one who shall be heir of my house.” The same thought is clearly repeated in the words, “Lo, one born in my house is mine heir” (v. 3). All the longings, sufferings, and disappointments of the years of Abram’s married life are expressed in this lamentation, that not one born of him, but only one born in his house would be his heir. Eliezer, born in Abram’s household and brought up as were all of Abram’s servants, in the fear of the Lord, was not only a trusted slave but a worthy follower of the faithful patriarch. He was “a man of piety, experience, and sound judgment” (PP 172).
5. Look now toward heaven. This shows that the vision was given to Abram at night. Still in vision, the patriarch was led out into the open and bidden to lift his eyes to the starry sky and count—if he could—its myriad glittering orbs, if he would know the number of his seed.
6. He believed in the Lord. Paul used this text as the cornerstone on which he erected the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). Although the possibility that Abram would have children had decreased since God’s first promise, as his age increased, he did not hesitate to take God’s word that it would be so. The Hebrew verbal form, translated “he believed,” he’emin, is from the same root as the word amen, with which we emphasize our desire that God may hear and fulfill our prayers. This verb expresses complete trust in the power and promises of God. The particular form of the verb here used expresses, furthermore, that this was not just Abram’s historical experience at the moment, but an abiding character trait as well. He kept on believing.
Abram’s faith and childlike trust in God did not make him “righteous”; rather, the Lord, “counted it to him for righteousness.” For the first time these important concepts, faith and justification, are brought together. It is obvious that Abram had no “righteousness” until it was credited to him by God. And if he had none, no man has ever had. Abram was a sinner and needed redemption, as does every other human being; but when righteousness was imputed to him, mercy and grace were also extended, effecting the pardon of his sin and bringing the rewards of righteousness. Here for the first time the full importance of faith is brought to view. Here also, for the first time, imputed righteousness is mentioned. From this point onward both fundamental concepts run through the Holy Scriptures, to find exhaustive and masterful treatment by the pen of the apostle Paul (see Rom. 4).
7. I am the Lord. Between vs. 6 and 7 there must have been an interval of indeterminate length. The new revelation takes place during the day, apparently toward the end of the day (vs. 12 and 17), whereas the previous vision had taken place during the night (v. 5). This may have occurred the following day, or possibly later. The initial circumstances of the new revelation are not described.
To give thee this land. For the third time God assures Abram that he is to possess the entire land of Canaan (see ch. 12:7; 13:14, 15). But his status had not changed in the least since he first entered Canaan. At intervals God repeated the promise, and Abram accepted it without ever seeing a visible sign of its fulfillment. He was still the homeless wanderer he had been when he arrived from Mesopotamia, and was still childless. It is only natural that questions arose in his mind.
8. Whereby shall I know? This request for a sign may be compared with the requests of Gideon (Judges 6:17, 36-40) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8). Abram’s question was not a symptom of unbelief or doubt, but the expression of heartfelt longing to see the promises of God fulfilled. Later, Zacharias, in unbelief, asked for a sign (Luke 1:18, 20), but Mary put a similar question to the angel in faith, humbly yearning for further assurance (Luke 1:34, 35). God, who sees the heart and answers accordingly, recognized the right of his faithful servant Abram to seek for faith’s full assurance.
9. Take me an heifer. God condescended to enter into a solemn covenant with Abram, in a form customary among the ancients. The expression “to conclude” or “to make” a covenant (v. 18), literally, “to cut” a covenant, was derived from the practice here described. The animals Abram was directed to use were precisely those later prescribed as sacrificial beasts by Moses (see Ex. 29:15; Num. 15:27; 19:2; Deut. 21:3; Lev. 1:14). The requirement that the quadrupeds were to be “three years old” specifies mature animals.
10. Divided them in the midst. Each of the three animals was slaughtered and divided, and the two halves placed one against the other, with a space between. The birds were killed, but not divided. One was probably laid on one side, and the other opposite it. Those entering into the covenant were to walk between the divided pieces, symbolically vowing perpetual obedience to the provisions thus solemnly agreed upon. The lives of the animals pledged the lives of those participating in the covenant. This practice remained in force for many centuries, for we find it practiced in Jeremiah’s time (Jer. 34:18, 19).
11. The fowls came down. This was, of course, a real occurrence and not merely a vision or dream. The reality of Abram’s fulfilling the divine directives is implied by the fact that he had to drive away birds of prey that tried to feed on the carcasses. If they are not prevented from doing so, vultures and other birds, in Oriental lands, begin to consume fallen animals immediately upon their death, usually picking their bones clean within a matter of minutes. Abram reverently walked between the severed parts of the sacrifice, according to custom, yet there was no visible evidence that God on His part accepted the obligations of the covenant. This was to come later (v. 17). But until then Abram felt it his duty to protect the carcasses from being torn to pieces and devoured (PP 137).
12. A deep sleep. Whether Abram’s sleep was the natural result of weariness from the day’s work or a sleep induced by God is not stated. The Hebrew word translated “deep sleep” is also used in ch. 2:21 for the unconscious state God caused to fall upon Adam when He created Eve. In 1 Sam. 26:12 this same “deep sleep” is said to be “from the Lord.” The use of this particular word, together with the fact that God appeared to Abram while he thus slept, seems to support the view that the sleep was supernaturally induced.
Great darkness. The meaning of this horror which came over Abram is not given. It may have been designed by God to impress him with the affliction his posterity was to suffer.
13. Know of a surety. This dream—or perhaps it was a vision—clarified for Abram the promises previously made to him. Additional information now revealed made it clear that immediate possession of Canaan could not be expected. But the certainty of the promises is stated in the strongest possible language of which Hebrew is capable. The phrase may be rendered literally, “knowing thou shalt know.” Abram may have wondered many times how much longer he would have to remain a stranger in the Land of Promise, and how he would ever realize the fulfillment of God’s promises. This revelation left no uncertainty as to the fact that he would remain a wanderer as long as he lived, as would his unborn descendants for four generations. The land of their sojourn is not mentioned in the vision, but its fulfillment made clear that both Canaan and Egypt were included. Canaan being economically dependent upon Egypt during the days of Abram and Isaac, and politically dependent as well under the Hyksos kings in Jacob’s and Joseph’s time, it is not strange to find both lands included in the singular “a land.”
Serve them. How strange it must have seemed to Abram that his seed, concerning whom such wonderful promises had been made, were to serve those in whose midst they should live. This prophecy was fulfilled in due time. Jacob, his grandson, became a servant for 20 years to Laban (ch. 31:41). Joseph, his great-grandson, was even sold as a slave, and later imprisoned (see chs. 39:1; 40:4). Finally, all the descendants of Israel were made slaves in Egypt (Ex. 1:13, 14).
They shall afflict them. Israel’s sojourn was to include not only servitude but affliction—persecution—as well. The sequence of pronouns seems rather ambiguous to the English reader, but is not so to one acquainted with Hebrew. According to the rule of inverted parallelism, in which the last member of a pair comes first when the parallelism is next mentioned, the pronoun “they” in the expression “they shall afflict them” refers back to the “them” of “shall serve them” (see on Gen. 10:1, 2).
The fulfillment of this prophecy may be traced in practically every generation for four centuries. Abram’s son Isaac was “persecuted” by Ishmael (Gal. 4:29; cf. Gen. 21:9). Jacob fled for his life from Esau (Gen. 27:41-43) and later from Laban (ch. 31:2, 21, 29). Joseph was sold by his own brothers as a slave and later unjustly thrown in jail (chs. 37:28; 39:20). The children of Israel, finally, were sorely “afflicted” by the Egyptians after Joseph’s death (Ex. 1:8, 12).
Four hundred years. The questions to be answered are: (1) Is this the time of affliction or the time of sojourning, or both? (2) How are these 400 years related to the 430 of Ex. 12:40, 41 and Gal. 3:16, 17? The first question hinges upon a solution to the second.
The statement in Ex. 12:40, that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years,” seems to imply that the Hebrews actually spent 430 years there, from Jacob’s entry to the Exodus. That this cannot be the meaning is evident from Gal. 3:16, 17, where it is stated that the law was promulgated at Sinai 430 years after the covenant between God and Abram. If Paul refers to the first promise made to Abram in Haran (Gen. 12:1-3), the 430 years began when Abram was 75 years old (ch. 12:4). The 400 years of affliction would then begin 30 years later, when Abram was 105 and his son Isaac 5 years old (ch. 21:5). This would be about the time Ishmael, who “was born after the flesh persecuted him [Isaac] that was born after the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29; Gen. 21:9-11).
The exact time from the call of Abram to Jacob’s entry into Egypt was 215 years (see Gen. 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), which would leave 215 years of the 430 as the actual time the Hebrews spent there. For this reason the 430 years of Ex. 12:40 must include the sojourn in Canaan as well as that in Egypt, from Abram’s call to the Exodus. The LXX renders Ex. 12:40 thus: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” As already pointed out, the land of Canaan was so dependent upon Egypt during the patriarchal period that Egyptian kings actually considered it theirs and referred to it as such. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose kings controlled both Palestine and Syria, Moses could appropriately include Canaan in the term Egypt as used in Ex. 12:40.
That nation. Without revealing the name of the nation referred to, the prophecy points to the time of the plagues that came upon Egypt (see Ex. 6:6).
Come out with great substance. This promise was remarkably fulfilled in the miraculous deliverance of the Hebrews from bondage, and in the immense wealth they carried with them (Ex. 12:36).
15. Go to thy fathers. Most commentators explain this text as implying the immortality of the soul and its disembodied existence in some haven of departed souls. Such an interpretation, however, ignores a common Hebrew figure of speech and forces a literal meaning from figurative words. To “go to” one’s fathers (Gen. 15:15), to be “gathered to” one’s people (ch. 25:8, 17) or to one’s fathers (Judges 2:10), and to sleep with one’s fathers (2 Kings 10:35) are common Hebrew euphemisms meaning simply “to die.” To imply from these expressions the immorality of the soul apart from the body is to assume to be true that which the Scriptures elsewhere specifically deny (see, for example, Ps. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6; etc.). Abram eventually died, and will not receive the promise until the heroes of all ages are rewarded for their faith (see Heb. 11:10, 13, 39, 40; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Matt. 16:27; Col. 3:3, 4).
Be buried. This emphasizes the view just expressed, that Abram was not promised that his soul would wing its flight to heaven or to any other place. He would be buried as his ancestors had been. They were resting in their graves; Abram would join them there. Nevertheless, God comforted him with the assurance of a peaceful old age. Abram lived to be 175 years old (Gen. 25:7, 8).
16. In the fourth generation. Commentators who apply the 400 years of v. 13 to the actual time the Hebrews spent in Egypt find a grave difficulty here. They must assume that the four generations averaged exactly 100 years each. This is contrary to available evidence. However, since the 400 years of v. 13 must refer to the time from Abram to the Exodus (see on v. 13), and the actual time of Israel’s stay in Egypt was only some 215 years, no discrepancy exists between this prediction and its fulfillment. Caleb belonged to the fourth generation from Judah (1 Chron. 2:3-5, 18), and Moses, from Levi (Ex. 6:16-20). Attempts to determine the length of a “generation” on the basis of Gen. 15:13, 16 are unjustified, and the results quite sure to be misleading. However ever this may be, one “generation,” or group of people, went into Egypt, two dwelt there, and a fourth came out.
The iniquity of the Amorites. There were two fundamental reasons for the apparent delay in the fulfillment of the divine promise. In the first place, it would take time for Abram’s seed to multiply to the point of being able to take over the country. In the second place, divine love and justice claimed for the Amorites an extension of their day of grace, lest they or others should charge God with unfairness and partiality when the time should come to destroy them and take over their country. In other words, the Hebrews were not ready to possess the land, nor was God ready to dispossess the Amorites.
There is a fixed degree of iniquity beyond which nations may not go without incurring the judgments of God. The depth of depravity and moral degeneration to which the peoples of Canaan had sunk by the time of Moses is revealed by their mythological literature, recently discovered. They describe their gods as blood-thirsty and cruel beings, killing and deceiving each other, and immoral beyond imagination. As were the antediluvians and the men of Sodom, the men of Canaan, like their gods, were controlled by the basest passions. We find them sacrificing their children, worshiping serpents, and practicing immoral rituals in their temples. Their sanctuaries housed professional prostitutes of both sexes. The Amorites, most powerful of several Canaanite tribes, here stand for all the inhabitants of Canaan (see Joshua 24:15; Judges 6:10; etc.).
17. A burning lamp. The final phase of the divine revelation was designed to impress Abram with the surety of God’s promises. A “smoking furnace” or “burning lamp,” symbols of the divine presence, passed between the severed carcasses, as Abram himself had done earlier, by daylight. That this was not merely a vision is evident from the fact that the animals were totally consumed (PP 137). By this visible token God confirmed His covenant with Abram, who thus for the first time beheld the sacred symbol of the divine presence.
18. This land. God herewith reaffirms His promise concerning possession of the land of Canaan. For the first time the precise geographical limits of the Promised Land are indicated. For practical purposes these limits were realized during the reigns of David and Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chron. 9:26).
19. The Kenites. The ten tribes listed do not include all the Canaanites. The number is perhaps symbolic of universality. The Kenites were in the mountainous parts of southwestern Palestine, near the Amalekites (Num. 24:20, 21; 1 Sam. 15:6; etc.). Their origin is not certain. At some time they may have intermarried with the Midianities, for Hobab, Moses’ brother-in-law, is called a Kenite (Judges 1:16; 4:11) and also a Midianite (Num. 10:29). They may have been a subfamily of the Midianites.
The Kenizzites. Not yet identified. Some think them to have been descendants of Esau’s grandson Kenaz (Gen. 36:15). If this be so, their mention here as a tribe would of necessity be prophetic, for Esau, a grandson of Abram, was not yet born. This suggestion hardly seems acceptable.
The Kadmonities. Not mentioned elsewhere. Their origin cannot be determined. Their name, meaning “easterners,” points to the eastern regions of Canaan as their abode.
20. The Hittites. See on ch. 10:15.
21. The Amorites. For these and other tribal groups mentioned in v. 21, see on ch. 10:15, 16.
1. An handmaid. Notwithstanding all the promises of God, the fact remained that Abram was still without a child ten years after the first promise had been made to him (v. 3). Hagar, an Egyptian servant of Sarai, is introduced. Since the Egyptians were a powerful nation in Abram’s time, it is most singular to find an Egyptian servant in a Palestinian household. Hagar was probably the personal attendant given to Sarai when she was taken to Pharaoh (see ch. 12:15, 16). That she was still in Abram’s house tends to show that Pharaoh had not taken back the gifts he had given Abram.
Hagar. This is not an Egyptian name. Her original name is not given. The name Hagar, meaning “flight” in Arabic, may have been given to her after her flight from her mistress.
2. Go in unto my maid. Faithlessly concluding that there was no hope of her bearing children, Sarai decided to follow the practice of her native country in order to provide an heir for the family. The legal codes of Mesopotamia recognized the practice whereby a childless wife might give one of her slaves to her husband and obtain children by means of her, and determined precisely the rights of such offspring. Regulations were needed particularly in the case of a first wife who would bear children after the servant had done so, or when a servant would become overbearing after being honored by giving birth to an heir (see the code of Hammurabi, sections 144-146, 170, 171).
Abram hearkened. Faith may be genuine and yet prove to be weak in moments of stress and perplexity. A vigorous faith will cling to the promise, and to that alone, trusting entirely to God for its accomplishment. Such was Abram’s faith, except upon three or four brief occasions, throughout a long and eventful life. God had no need of Abram’s devices for the accomplishment of His promise. Trust and obedience alone were required. In complying with Sarai’s rash suggestion, Abram followed in the footsteps of Adam. In both instances the result was suffering and disappointment, and the imagined blessing proved to be a curse. By listening to Sarai’s suggestion Abram created for himself difficulties far reaching in their consequences. There ensued domestic trouble and heartache, and hatred between the future offspring of both wives. Again, in the present day, how bitterly the modern representatives of Sarai’s and Hagar’s descendants, the Jews and the Arabs, have contended for the possession of the Holy Land!
3. Ten years. The faith of Abram and Sarai, which had remained constant for ten years, now gave way. This comment is introduced probably to account for their impatience at the delay in the arrival of an heir. Little did Abram realize that the delay was divinely appointed to test his faith and to develop his character.
4. Her mistress was despised. Barrenness among the Hebrews was ever regarded as a dishonor and a reproach (Gen. 30:1, 23; Lev. 20:20; see on Luke 1:25), whereas fecundity was considered a special mark of divine favor (see Gen. 21:6; 24:60; Ex. 23:26; etc.). That the Egyptian maid, honored by admission to the rank of a wife (v. 3), should forget her privileged status and become haughty, was precisely the conduct that might have been expected. She would not assent to the plan of her mistress; why should her child be passed off as Sarai’s son? The maid who had served Sarai so faithfully through the years as to be considered eligible to become Abram’s wife began to despise her whom she had honored heretofore. Homes where the divinely approved marriage status is interfered with are homes where heartache, jealousy, and bitter strife prevail. Abram’s home was no exception, and the harmony of earlier times was transformed into discord.
5. My wrong be upon thee. Sarai uses the language of passionate irritation, indicating regret for her previous decision and the intention to blame her husband for the act and for its bitter consequences. She even makes an irreverent use of the name of Jehovah, invoking His judgment upon Abram.
6. Do to her as it pleaseth thee. Section 146 of the ancient Mesopotamian code of Hammurabi says that “if later that female slave has claimed equality with her mistress because she bore children, her mistress may not sell her; she may mark her with the slave-mark and count her among the slaves.” This law permitted the humiliation of an overbearing slave-concubine, but also laid certain restrictions upon her owner. Abram, a Mesopotamian by birth and education, was certainly well acquainted with the laws and customs of his homeland, and complied therefore with the law, which allowed his wife to humiliate Hagar but not to sell her. Abram’s conciliatory disposition is also apparent from the permission he gave Sarai. He suppressed his own feelings in order to restore harmony to the troubled home. On the other hand, he exhibited weakness in yielding to Sarai’s passionate purpose to inflict unjustifiable punishment on the future mother of his child.
Sarai dealt hardly with her. When Sarai restored her to the status of a slave, as the civil law of that time permitted, and even took recourse to corporal punishment as the Hebrew term “dealt hardly” implies, Hagar left the home of Abram and fled. If the slave was legally at fault in running away, her mistress was certainly liable to censure.
7. The angel of the Lord. Although most conservative expositors have here recognized the second person of the Godhead, it is far from certain that He appeared in person. Angels were frequently used to transmit divine messages to men, and this “angel of the Lord” may have been understood by Hagar either to be Jehovah Himself (v. 13), or perhaps simply a representative of Jehovah. Ellen G. White speaks of him simply as “an angel” (PP 145, 152). God Himself repeatedly appeared to Abram (Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12). Only once was an angel commissioned to speak to him (Gen. 22:11, 15). The account here closely resembles that of the visit of the angel, but differs greatly from those of God Himself.
In the way to Shur. Hagar was on the way to her native Egypt, and had almost reached the Egyptian border (see Gen. 25:18; 1 Sam. 15:7). “The fountain” implies a particular, well-known spring.
9. Submit thyself. The Hebrew verb translated “submit” is another form of the verb rendered “dealt hardly” in v. 6. Hagar was to return and submit meekly to Sarai, however, no matter how unkindly Sarai might treat her.
God did not condone Sarai’s harshness toward Hagar. He will punish those who misuse their authority, but He rarely entrusts this duty to those who are suffering under harsh and unjust treatment. Meekness is a trait of character God looks for in His children (see Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Peter 2:18-23).
10. I will multiply thy seed. God recognized the difficult circumstances in which Hagar found herself, and for which she was not primarily to blame. Hagar honored the true God, and He would not abandon her in her extremity. The promise He there made to her, a slave, is without parallel. This promise greatly comforted Hagar. Although her son was not to be the son of the divine plan, he would nevertheless share in the promise made to Abram. God had promised to multiply Abram’s seed, without limiting it to the offspring of Sarai. Therefore He would abide by His promise to the very letter, but reserve the spiritual blessing for the seed originally intended by the promise, that is, Isaac (see Gal. 4:23-30; Rom. 9:7, 8).
11. Ishmael. This is the first time God named an unborn child (see Gen. 17:19; Luke 1:13, 31). He thus manifested to Hagar His interest in her and her offspring. The name of the child, Ishmael, “God shall hear,” was to remind her of God’s merciful interposition, and to remind Ishmael that he was an object of God’s gracious providence.
12. He will be a wild man. Literally, “a wild ass of a man,” as in the RSV. This figure of speech referring to the onager, a wild and untamable animal that roams at will in the desert, aptly depicts the Bedouin’s love of freedom as he rides, hardy and frugal, reveling in the varied beauty of nature and despising town life. A highly poetic description of the wild ass appears in Job 39:5-8.
His hand will be against every man. An accurate description of the Arabs, many of whom claim Ishmael as their father. Powerful nations have attempted to conquer Arabia, and subject it to their will, but none have met permanent success. The Arabs have maintained their independence, and God has preserved them as a lasting monument to His providential care. They stand today an incontestable argument to the truth of this divine prediction.
13. Thou God seest me. This experience convinced Hagar that God had spoken to her. Apparently believing that death must come to one who sees God (Ex. 20:19; 33:20), she was astonished to have seen Him and yet remain alive. Therefore she called Him “God of seeing,” for He not only had seen her and come to her in her affliction but had also permitted her to see Him and live.
14. Beer-lahai-roi. Thenceforth the well was known by a name meaning “well of the living One seeing me.” For generations Arabs refreshing themselves at this well were reminded that God here revealed Himself to their ancestor.
Between Kadesh and Bered. The location of the well, mentioned also in chs. 24:62 and 25:11, has been lost. Inasmuch as Bered is also unknown, all that can be said is that the well must have been west of Kadesh in the southwestern part of Canaan, on the way to Egypt. Some scholars have identified it with the well Ain Kadesh, which the Arabs call Moilahi Hagar.
15. Hagar bare Abram a son. In compliance with the divine order given to Hagar, Abram named his son Ishmael. For 13 years Abram seems to have remained under the illusion that Ishmael was the promised seed. When Abram was 99 the will of God was more clearly unfolded to him (see ch. 17:1, 18).
1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine. Thirteen years had elapsed since the birth of Ishmael (ch. 16:16) before God again revealed Himself to Abram. During the previous 11 years God had appeared to him at least 4 times (see ch. 12:1, 7; 13:14; 15:1). The long delay on the part of God to appear again to Abram was probably not without purpose. It was perhaps intended as a remedial penalty for Abram’s impatience in not waiting for God to work things out in His own good time and way.
I am the Almighty God. This name of God, ’El-Shaddai, is found only in the books of Genesis and Job, 6 times in the former and 31 times in the latter. This is one of many indications that the author of both books was one and the same person. The origin and meaning of the word Shaddai are uncertain, but the KJV translation, “almighty,” is in all probability the most nearly correct one (Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15). This name was well chosen in view of the new promise God was about to make to Abram. Twenty-four years had passed since his entry into the land of Canaan (see Gen. 12:4). During the first ten years God had repeatedly promised Abram a child, until he took things into his own hands, married Hagar, and begot Ishmael. Since Ishmael’s birth there is no record of any further divine revelations having been received, and Abram seems to have thought that Ishmael was the fulfillment of God’s promises (see vs. 17, 18). Ready now to renew His promise to Abram, God found him somewhat skeptical. For this reason God introduced Himself as “the Almighty God,” for whom nothing, however difficult it might appear to men, would be impossible.
Walk before me. For 13 years Abram had not fully walked “before” God; hence the command to do so. Abram was to walk as if in God’s very presence, conscious of divine inspection and solicitous for His approval—not behind Him, as if sensible of his shortcomings and desirous of avoiding observation. There is a marked difference between the expression used to designate Enoch’s (ch. 5:24) and Noah’s (ch. 6:9) lives, and this command. Of the two earlier patriarchs it was said that they walked “with God,” while Abram is asked to walk “before” Him. This suggests a less-complete degree of fellowship, and may have implied God’s displeasure with Abram’s lack of faith in marrying Hagar.
Be thou perfect. Just as righteousness received in faith (justification) was necessary to the establishment of the covenant, so a blameless walk before God (sanctification) was necessary to its maintenance. This exhortation may perhaps have been a veiled reference to the fact that Abram’s past life had not been entirely blameless. God wished Abram to understand that the ultimate realization of the divine promise required him to measure up more completely to God’s exalted standard of purity and holiness (see Matt. 5:8, 48). Abram was called to a higher experience than he had known heretofore.
2. My covenant. This does not intimate a new covenant, but rather that the covenant concluded some 14 years earlier (ch. 15) was about to be carried out.
3. Abram fell on his face. Abram, who may have wondered during the many years of silence whether God would ever reveal Himself again, fell down in reverential awe. This attitude in worship was common in ancient times, and was even a posture showing respect for human beings (see Gen. 17:17; 24:52; Num. 16:22; Mark 14:35).
4. As for me. God refers to Himself at the beginning of the sentence by way of emphasis. The expression is equivalent to saying, “So far as I am concerned I,” or, “I for my part,” hold myself bound to the covenant of many years ago.
A father of many nations. This prediction was to have a twofold fulfillment. In the first place, it pointed to the numerous tribes that would trace their genealogy back to Abram. The Ishmaelite Arabs, the Midianites, and other Arabic tribes descending from Keturah (see ch. 25:1-4), and the Edomites—as well as the Israelites—all were the offspring of Abram. In a wider sense, however, this promise pointed to the innumerable spiritual descendants who would claim Abram as their father (Gal. 3:29).
5. Thy name shall be Abraham. Abram was the first of several men whose names God changed. Names were of much greater importance to the ancients than they are to us. All Semitic names have meanings, and usually consist of a phrase or sentence that expresses a wish, or perhaps gratitude, on the part of the parent. In view of the importance people themselves attached to names, God changed the names of certain men to make them harmonize with their experiences, past or future. Abram, meaning “exalted father,” does not appear in this form elsewhere in the Bible, but is found under the form Abiram, meaning “my father is exalted” (see Num. 16:1; 1 Kings 16:34). That the name Abraham is only an extended form of Abram, as some commentators maintain, is unlikely in view of the explanation given in this verse. With our present knowledge of the various Semitic languages current in Abraham’s time, however, it is not easy to explain the name Abraham. It is still best to take recourse to the Arabic word ruham, as several generations of Bible expositors have done. The word ruham means “great number,” and may have existed in ancient Hebrew, though it does not occur in Hebrew literature available today. The name Abraham would accordingly be translated “father of a great number,” which agrees with the explanation God gave to the patriarch after changing his name, “a father of many nations have I made thee.”
7. I will establish my covenant. The terms and benefits of this covenant relate not only to Abraham as an individual but to all his descendants as well, both literal and spiritual. The promise here made to Abraham refers specifically to Christ (Gal. 3:16; Acts 2:30), and through Him, according to Paul, all Christians are to share in it (Gal. 3:29; Acts 16:31). A correct understanding of the terms of this covenant will go far toward maintaining a right relationship between God and the believer today.
An everlasting covenant. The word translated “everlasting” does not by any means always indicate an endless period (see on Ex. 21:6). “Everlasting” as used in the Bible generally denotes circumstances or conditions that are to persist so long as the object to which they apply can, by virtue of its inherent nature, be affected by them. This is clear from such expressions as let the king “live for ever” (1 Kings 1:31; Neh. 2:3; etc.), which simply expresses the wish that the king may enjoy a long life. Inasmuch as all followers of Christ—the spiritual seed of Abraham—are heirs to the glorious covenant promises (Gal. 3:7, 27-29), the “everlasting covenant” must remain in effect as long as the plan of salvation is operative. The provisions of God’s covenant with Abraham are thus available throughout all generations.
To be a God. This promise comprehends all the blessings of salvation and is a clear indication of the spiritual character of the Abrahamic covenant. God gives Himself to the one who enters into the covenant relationship, and in so doing bestows upon him all the privileges, the joys, and the glorious hope that come with kinship to God. He who thus becomes a son or a daughter of God can desire nothing more to make him happy, either in this life or in the life to come. It is as if God had said to Abraham, “Whatever I am or have, or whatever I can do, I will be and do for you and for your seed. All my boundless resources shall be employed for your protection, your consolation, and your salvation” (see Rom. 8:32). Blessed indeed are those whose God is Jehovah (Ps. 144:15). Under the terms of the everlasting covenant, God and the believer each gives himself without reservation to the other.
8. All the land of Canaan. To those far-reaching promises of a spiritual nature was added once more the assurance that the whole land of Canaan was to belong to Abraham and to his posterity. This promise had been made repeatedly in the past (see chs. 12:7; 13:15; 15:7, 18-21). Upon this occasion he was told that the promise would remain in force forever, meaning that his literal descendants were to possess the land so long as they should comply with the conditions of the covenant, and that his faithful children, both literal and spiritual, would eventually inherit the heavenly Canaan forever and ever.
10. Every man child. In the Hebrew this is much more of a command than the English rendering implies. Literally, “Circumcise among you every male.” The rite of circumcision is here introduced as an obligation in connection with the covenant. It was to be the sign of the covenant with literal Israel as baptism is for spiritual Israel (see Gen. 17:11; Col. 2:11, 12; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21). The one was related to physical birth; the other accompanies the spiritual rebirth.
11. Ye shall circumcise. From ancient times various suggestions have been made in explanation of this rite. The Alexandrian philosopher Philo, a Jew, believed it was ordained by God merely to promote physical cleanliness; others saw in it a protest against certain idolatrous rites practiced by the Egyptians and other heathen nations. Calvin believed it to mean a symbolic putting away of the fifth of the flesh, and so of sin in general. The following points, however, may be noted with reference to the importance of circumcision. It was destined: (1) to distinguish the seed of Abraham from the Gentiles (Eph. 2:11), (2) to perpetuate the memory of the Jehovah’s covenant (Gen. 17:11), (3) to foster the cultivation of moral purity (Deut. 10:16), (4) to represent righteousness by faith (Rom. 4:11), (5) to symbolize circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29), and (6) to foreshadow the Christian rite of baptism (Col. 2:11, 12).
The Hebrews were not alone in ancient times in their practice of circumcision. For example, there are records of the custom among the early Egyptians and various Semitic peoples.
It has been practiced in differing forms and administered to persons of varying ages or classes, and has survived into modern times among some African tribes, the Arabs, and other Moslem peoples, and scattered groups such as the Pacific islanders.
A token of the covenant. God has appointed signs and memorials of various significant events. The Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of creation; circumcision, of the Abrahamic covenant; baptism, of Christ’s death and resurrection; and the Lord’s Supper, of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice. Outward signs may teach spiritual truths, thus becoming God’s appointed channels of spiritual blessing. Thus they may serve as perpetual reminders of God’s grace and of our own duty and responsibility.
12. Every man child. Abraham was given specific instructions as to who should participate in the rite of circumcision, and when it was to be administered. These regulations were later incorporated into the law of Moses (Lev. 12:3; Luke 2:21). No male member of Hebrew society, whether free or slave, was exempted. Circumcision, the token of God’s covenant with Abraham, became a sign to Israel that they were God’s people, and every male Israelite, therefore, received that sign. With the rejection of literal Israel as God’s chosen people, circumcision ceased to have significance as a religious rite (Acts 15:5, 10, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29; Gal. 2:3-5; 5:2-6; Rom. 2:28, 29).
14. Be cut off. This judgment is repeated in the Mosaic legislation, for various infractions of its provisions (see Ex. 12:15, 19; Lev. 17:4, 10; Num. 15:30; 19:13). The personal experience of Moses indicates the solemn importance God attached to the performance of this rite (Ex. 4:24-26). Whether the sentence was to be carried out at the hands of the congregation, the civil magistrates, or God Himself is not explicitly stated. That the expulsion from one’s people was in certain cases followed by the death penalty (see Ex. 31:14) does not prove that capital punishment invariably accompanied such a sentence (see Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20, 21; Num. 19:13). However this may have been, an uncircumcised Hebrew, whether child or adult, would forfeit his social, political, and religious standing as a Hebrew (see on Ex. 12:15).
15. Sarah shall her name be. This is the first time Abraham’s wife Sarai was mentioned by name in any divine communication with him. No great difference exists between the two names Sarai and Sarah. Sarai, meaning “my princess,” became simply Sarah, “a princess.” Formerly she had been Abraham’s princess, but henceforth she was to be recognized as the princess and progenitor of an entire nation. She would belong to her descendants as well as to Abraham.
16. A son also of her. After the many years of waiting Abraham was given definite instructions to the effect that the promised seed would be Sarah’s child and not the child of Hagar (see Gal. 4:22-31).
Kings of people shall be of her. This refers primarily to David and his successors upon the throne of Judah, but includes as well the royalty of Edom. God assures Abraham that notwithstanding the perversity of men, who so often in their haste hinder Him, His purpose will prevail (see Isa. 46:10, 11; 55:10, 11).
17. Abraham fell upon his face. That Abraham fell once more upon his face indicates that he had risen since prostrating himself at the beginning of this revelation (see v. 3).
And laughed. Commentators vary in their opinion as to whether Abraham’s laughter was the expression of joy or of doubt. Although it would be more pleasing to agree with those who advocate the former, on the basis of Rom. 4:19, 20, the context seems to favor the latter. Paul’s statement in Romans would then apply to Abraham’s state of mind after being convinced of the reality of the promise. The questions asked by Abraham, probably in his heart rather than spoken audibly, “Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old,” and, “Shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” do not leave the impression of being spoken in joy. They seem to express doubt. Perhaps Abraham’s laughter may also have reflected his embarrassment in finding that the divine promise regarding Sarah ignored his plans for Ishmael (see Gen. 17:18). Those who find it difficult to think of doubt in the heart of Abraham, the great hero of faith, should consider the events recorded in chs. 12:11-13 and 16:2-4. Note also Sarah’s laughter in ch. 18:12-15, which shows that she still doubted, even after Abraham had believed (see ch. 21:6, 9; also on ch. 17:19).
18. That Ishmael might live before thee! This plea suggests that ever since the birth of Ishmael, Abraham had clung tenaciously to the hope that this son might be the promised heir. Blind to the possibility of Sarah’s presenting him with a son, at her advanced age, Abraham intercedes on behalf of Ishmael. Abraham would be content to accept him, the son of his own devising, in lieu even of the one to be born of Sarah. Furthermore, it would save him the embarrassment of giving up his publicly announced plan for Ishmael to be his heir (see PP 146).
19. Call his name Isaac. “Indeed”—unquestionably—Sarah would become a mother; there was no reason to doubt. The name God selected for Sarah’s promised son, Isaac, means “he laughs.” This may be a reference to Abraham’s laughter, the lasting reminder of a weak moment of doubt. More likely, however, it reflects the joy Abraham would experience with the birth of the son of promise. He might laugh now in doubt, but then he would rejoice indeed, when faith should meet reality (see Gen. 21:6, 7; Isa. 54:1; Gal. 4:27). The names of both Isaac and Ishmael were selected prior to birth, and the names of Abram and Sarai were changed because a new experience was in store for them.
20. As for Ishmael. God reassured Abraham that the special promises made to Isaac would not contravene those made to Ishmael’s mother at the well in the wilderness (ch. 16:10). The names of the 12 sons of Ishmael are given in ch. 25:12-16. Like the 12 sons of Jacob, each of them became the father of a tribe (see on ch. 25:13-16).
21. With Isaac. Repeating the statement of v. 19, God assured Abraham that Isaac, not Ishmael, was to be the son of the covenant. While Ishmael should share generally in the blessings promised to Abraham, the offspring of Isaac would become sufficiently numerous to possess the land of Canaan. Specifically, the covenant, with all its material and spiritual blessings, was to Sarah’s son, Isaac, and to his posterity. The later history of the two sons fully justifies God’s selection of the one and rejection of the other. Even though Hagar had come to believe in the true God, the influence of her earlier Egyptian training proved to be decisive in the life of Ishmael and his sons, for his descendants became pagans.
At this set time. A time limit is now attached to the promise of a son. No longer could there be room for uncertainty. After waiting nearly 25 years since the first promise, and having shown faith and doubt in the past, Abraham learned that the time of waiting was soon to end.
22. God went up. This statement indicates that the revelation of God had been a visible one. We have no idea of the form under which Abraham saw God.
23. Abraham took Ishmael. Obeying God, Abraham circumcised all male members of his large household, including Ishmael. Because Ishmael was 13 years old when circumcised (v. 25), the Arabs even now defer this rite to a much later period than do the Jews, generally from the age of 5 to 13 and frequently not before the 13th year.
1. The Lord appeared unto him. This must have occurred but a short time after the experience of ch. 17, since both events took place approximately one year prior to Isaac’s birth (see chs. 17:21; 18:10, 14). For the “plains of Mamre,” meaning the grove of Mamre near Hebron, see on ch. 13:18.
Throughout the narrative of the 18th chapter, note that whereas Moses consistently refers to Abraham’s divine visitor as “Lord” (KJV), Yahweh, “Jehovah,” Abraham always addresses Him as “Lord,” ’Adonai, “Sir” (see on v. 3).
The heat of the day. This expression probably designates noontime (see 1 Sam. 11:11), and the “cool of the day,” literally, the “wind” of the day (Gen. 3:8), refers to late afternoon or evening. The usual Hebrew term for noon is ṣohorayim (ch. 43:16), a dual form meaning literally, the time of “double,” that is, “greatest” light. A poetical expression refers to noon as, literally, “the height of the day” (Prov. 4:18), because the sun has then reached the zenith. We speak of “high noon.” Upon this occasion Abraham had perhaps dined and was resting, for upon the arrival of his visitors it was necessary to begin preparations for their entertainment.
2. Three men stood by him. Thus opens the account of the Lord’s sixth appearance to Abraham (see on ch. 17:1). Some expositors have taken the three “men” to be the three persons of the Godhead. This view seems unwarranted, since two of the three are referred to as angels (Gen. 19:1, 15; Heb. 13:2), and as men (Gen. 19:10, 12, 16). It seems best, therefore, to see in the three “men” the Lord and two angels.
When he saw them. Abraham was not yet aware of their identity. He saw only three travel-weary strangers looking for rest and food. With true Oriental courtesy he ran toward them to offer the facilities of his home, bowing down before them in harmony with Eastern custom. This form of greeting in no way indicates that Abraham recognized Jehovah as one of the three. He did the same in the presence of his Hittite neighbors (ch. 23:7, 12). Similarly, Jacob bowed down before Esau (ch. 33:3), Joseph before his father (ch. 48:12), Solomon before his mother (1 Kings 2:19), and the sons of the prophets before Elisha (2 Kings 2:15).
3. My Lord. That Abraham directed his invitation to one of the strangers has been taken by some expositors as an indication that he already recognized Jehovah as one of them. It is probable that one of the three excelled the others in appearance or that one stepped forward as spokesman for the group, with the result that Abraham directed his remarks to that one. It should be noted, furthermore, that the Hebrew word here translated “Lord” is not the sacred Yahweh, but ’adonai, equivalent, to “sir,” a respectful form of salutation.
If now I have found favour. This expression was frequently used by one person in talking to another of higher rank, or to one whom he desired particularly to honor. It does not imply that Abraham had recognized one of the men to be God. Laban thus addressed Jacob (ch. 30:27), Jacob, Esau (chs. 32:5; 33:8, 10, 15), Shechem, Jacob (ch. 34:11), the Egyptians, Joseph (ch. 47:25), and Jacob, Joseph (ch. 47:29). Many other examples show this to have been a common formula.
Pass not away. With typical Oriental charm and hospitality Abraham invited the strangers to pause long enough to refresh themselves. Abraham was apparently one of those who “entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13:2). This experience shows that Abraham habitually practiced hospitality toward strangers. Although these persons were at first entirely unknown to him, his greeting was as respectful as if a messenger had arrived in advance to announce their identity and their intention of paying him a visit. Those who hold themselves in readiness to show kindness to strangers and travelers may unexpectedly be favored with the presence of guests in whose power it is to confer special blessing (see Luke 24:29).
4. Wash your feet. Abraham first mentioned water to wash the feet of the tired travelers, a necessary aspect of hospitality in some Eastern countries to the present day. While they rested under a tree he would prepare a meal for them. After this they could depart in peace and continue their journey.
6. Make ready quickly. Like a Bedouin sheik of the present day, Abraham directed his wife to take three “measures,” se’im (or about 20 qts.), of fine meal and bake cakes. The baking was done upon hot stones. The “butter” was curded milk, considered a delicacy in many Oriental lands even today. The menu listed in this and the next two verses provided a bountiful and satisfying meal. Abraham gave them the best he had.
8. They did eat. Abraham’s heavenly visitors actually ate the food he had prepared for them, as Christ in His risen and glorified form later did to prove the reality of His resurrection (Luke 24:21-43). The acceptance of Abraham’s hospitality on the part of Christ and the angels was perhaps to prove to Abraham that their visit to his tent at Mamre was not a dream or a vision but a genuine experience.
9. Where is Sarah? Abraham stood (v. 8), and waited upon them while they ate. Having eaten, they asked for Sarah. Such a request was decidedly out of keeping with Oriental custom; strangers should neither know nor use a wife’s given name. Their knowledge of her name probably suggested to Abraham that his guests were more than men, and their request implied that their visit had to do with her. The ensuing conversation made their identity clear, and from the promise now repeated, Abraham certainly recognized the One who had appeared to him five times previously. This was the first occasion on which Sarah had personally witnessed one of the divine manifestations accorded her husband. Abraham already knew and believed (Rom. 4:19, 20). From these facts, and from Gen. 18:9-15, it appears that this visit was designed to prepare Sarah for the supreme experience of her life—the birth of her first and only son.
10. The time of life. This may indicate a year, as implied by Rom. 9:9 and so rendered in the LXX, or it may perhaps refer to the normal period of pregnancy, nine months. In either case, Sarah was to give birth to a son by that time.
Sarah heard it. Sarah was standing behind the tent curtains, as has been the custom of Arab women since ancient times. Forbidden to mingle freely with menfolk, including male guests, especially if they are strangers, but nevertheless intensely interested in their conversations, Bedouin women, now as then, are usually to be found close to the opening of the tent but just out of view. Although they themselves cannot be seen, they usually hear everything spoken by visitors and observe them closely. The mention of her name must have surprised Sarah as well as Abraham. With what intense fascination and rapt attention she must have followed the announcement that she was to have a son.
11. Abraham and Sarah were old. Like Abraham at the previous revelation, Sarah could not now believe that the promise made would ever come true. For 25 years she had heard it reiterated, but to her the days had been prolonged beyond credibility, and each of Abraham’s visions in turn had apparently failed. As a result of the previous revelation (ch. 17) Abraham’s doubt had been turned to faith, and on this occasion there is no evidence of doubt on his part, as Paul pointedly observes (see Rom. 4:19, 20).
12. Sarah laughed. On the occasion of the previous divine revelation Abraham had laughed (see on ch. 17:17). Now Sarah laughed, probably expressing bitterness at her lot and incredulity that circumstances should ever be otherwise. By a half-sarcastic, half-wistful laugh she gave expression to the thought, “That is too good to be true!” (see Eze. 12:22-28).
My Lord. In contrast to Sarah’s obvious faults, her deferential submission to Abraham is praiseworthy. Even when talking to herself she referred to him as “my lord,” for which the NT commends her as an example of Christian wifely virtue (1 Peter 3:6).
14. Is any thing too hard? The veil of anonymity was now thrown completely aside, and the speaker unmistakably identified Himself as the Lord. It is interesting to note that although this divine appearance was perhaps intended more for Sarah’s benefit than for Abraham’s, since he already knew and believed, the Lord did not address Sarah directly until she had first spoken to Him. Instead of speaking to Sarah, He asked Abraham whether anything could be too difficult for the Lord. It was primarily to correct Sarah’s unbelief and to strengthen her faith that God spoke thus. Where human wisdom and strength fail, and where nature, enfeebled, lacks ability to act, there God still has full sway and brings things to pass according to the counsels of His own divine will. In fact, He often permits circumstances to reach an impasse so that human impotence may stand forth in striking contrast to His omnipotence.
15. Sarah denied. Sarah’s denial shows that her laugh and remark of v. 12 were scarcely audible, if even that, and that she did not think either had been heard. Now she spoke directly to the strangers, either remaining behind the tent curtains or stepping out into the open. Fear of offending the guests and of having her secret feelings revealed led to denial. The sudden consciousness of detection forced her into a moment of confusion from which she sought escape by the route of falsehood.
Thou didst laugh. With terse directness resembling that with which He had addressed the first culprits in Eden, God solemnly and unequivocally declared her denial to be false. The subsequent silence of Sarah is evidence of conviction, whereas her eventual conception of Isaac implies repentance and forgiveness.
16. The men rose up. Rested and refreshed, the three heavenly visitants were ready to continue their journey. Their destination is now mentioned for the first time. If Sodom and its sister cities were in the valley that now forms the southern part of the Dead Sea (see on ch. 14:3), they were about 25 mi. from Hebron—a good day’s journey. Inasmuch as Abraham’s guests had arrived at noon, and no doubt spent several hours with him, their departure probably took place in the late afternoon.
Abraham went with them. In accordance with an old custom of friendship continued throughout NT times (Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:11; Acts 20:38; 3 John 6), Abraham accompanied his guests for a short distance. In Oriental lands it is still customary upon the departure of guests to escort them on their way, the distance indicating the degree of respect and honor the host wishes to show them. An old tradition claims that Abraham went as far as Caphar-Barucha, a mountain spot approximately 4 or 5 mi. by road east-northeast of Hebron, whence one may see the Dead Sea. From this point, perhaps, Abraham and his guests beheld the prosperous cities of the plain.
17. Shall I hide from Abraham? Abraham is called in the Scriptures the friend of God (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8). Since he stood so high in the divine favor and fellowship, God saw fit to impart to him a more intimate knowledge of His works and ways. Similarly, He has entrusted messages to the prophets, concerning whom He says that they stand in His counsel, or “secret” (Jer. 23:18-22; Amos 3:7). It is particularly with reference to acts of judgment upon the earth that the Lord speaks thus.
18. A great and mighty nation. Referring to the first promises ever made to Abraham (ch. 12:2), God explains why it is fitting and proper to inform him as to the judgment about to be visited upon the cities of the plain. Theoretically, at least, all the land belonged to Abraham. If God, as senior partner to the covenant, proposed to take action affecting a certain part of it, Abraham as a proved and reliable junior partner should be informed thereof. It was essential, in fact, that Abraham should understand and approve of the action about to be taken, since it involved Lot and his family, some of whom were soon to lose their lives as a result.
19. For I know him. Abraham could be trusted; he would not betray God. Happy tribute to the aging patriarch! The intelligent discharge of his divinely appointed task required that he share in a knowledge of God’s purposes. Abraham’s posterity must also understand, lest they share the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was to be his duty to pass on to future generations what he knew of God’s dealings with the human race. God’s moral and ceremonial laws were also part of the sacred heritage he was to transmit to future generations. Abraham not only prayed with and before his family, but interceded for them as priest, a practice followed by other patriarchs and holy men of old (see Job 1:5). As a prophet he instructed his family in both the theory and the practice of religion, with emphasis on the practical virtues. He taught his family not only to know these things but to do them as well. A benevolent husband, father, and supervisor, he gave positive direction to the social and religious life of his vast family.
God could trust Abraham, for he would “command” his family, not by dictatorial methods, but by clear precept and consistent example. In training children, every word, look, and act has its effect. In many homes, there is little training by way of either instruction or example. Parents are held accountable for the sacred trust of children and should therefore combine firmness with love, as did Abraham. This task of training up children in the way they should go cannot be delegated to another, custodian or teacher, without grave danger of loss. The influence of godly teachers should not be expected to supplant, but rather to supplement, home training. Each has its place, and is incomplete without the help of the other to aid and reinforce it.
20. They cry of Sodom and Gomorrah. This refers to the exceeding wickedness that prevailed in the cities of the plain (see ch. 13:13). The limit of God’s patience and long-suffering had now been reached. Though the ways of the people of the plain had long been evil, God gave them a period of grace during which He had not left Himself without witnesses. Lot’s righteous life provided them with an example of how they should live, but this had no influence upon them (see 2 Peter 2:7, 8). Their previous dealings with Abraham had placed them in contact with the true God (see Gen. 14:22). But all was to no avail. Their wickedness, which was “very grievous,” literally, “very heavy,” cried to heaven for punishment. The world in our day has nearly reached the same depth of evil (see Luke 17:28-32; 5T 208).
21. I will go down now, and see. This does not imply that God was not completely informed as to what was going on at Sodom (see ch. 13:13). As at the building of the Tower of Babel (see ch. 11:5), God safeguarded man’s concept of divine justice by making it clear to Abraham that the decision to destroy Sodom was not arbitrary, but based on necessity. Therefore no discrepancy exists between God’s announcement of His intent to investigate Sodom personally and the certainty of judgment already implied in v. 17.
22. Abraham stood yet. Two of Abraham’s heavenly visitors now left him and descended to the plain (see ch. 19:1). The Lord, however, remained behind to converse further with Abraham.
23. Abraham drew near. This expression seems to indicate more than a mere physical approach to the Lord. The Hebrew word translated “drew near” is sometimes used to indicate a reaching out of the mind and heart toward God in contrition and worship (Ex. 30:20; Isa. 29:13; Jer. 30:21). The same thought is similarly expressed in the NT (see Heb. 4:16; 10:22; James 4:8).
Wilt thou also destroy? This personal concern for his fellow men is one of the sublime traits of Abraham’s character. His intercession on their behalf is one of several similar situations recorded in Scripture (see Ex. 32:11-32; Job 42:10; Eze. 14:14; Dan. 9:3-19; Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60). Abraham was moved not only by his concern for Lot but still more by a deep sense of compassion toward the inhabitants of Sodom, with many of whom he had become personally acquainted upon the occasion of their rescue from the hands of the Mesopotamian kings. Abraham must have had reason to believe that some of the inhabitants of the plain had been influenced favorably by his earlier ministry on their behalf. Though Lot is obviously not forgotten, his name is never mentioned. Abraham’s compassion was probably heightened and intensified by the memory of his own need of forgiving grace on previous occasions.
This question presupposes that God had, according to the resolution of Gen. 18:17, explained to the patriarch His intention to destroy the cities of the plain. Abraham’s objective was not simply the preservation of any godly remnant that might be found within the doomed cities, but an extended period of probation for their entire population. Realizing it to be a settled fact, however, that the wealthy but wicked cities of the plain were to be destroyed, Abraham proceeded with bold humility to inquire whether the Lord had considered the fate of the righteous in the general overthrow of the wicked. Here Abraham’s appeal was to God’s gracious mercy.
25. Shall not the Judge? God alone is the Judge of all men. Addressing Him thus, Abraham gives evidence that he knew the One before whom he stood to be the Supreme Being. Now he appealed, not to God’s grace and pardon, but to His absolute judicial equity. This principle had been demonstrated by God in His extension of probation for the Amorites another 400 years. Their iniquity was “not yet full” (ch. 15:16). When God consented to spare Sodom if only ten righteous men could be found within its gates, He followed the same principle.
26. I will spare. God accepted the stipulation proposed by Abraham, not as an act of justice, but as an exercise of mercy. Justice required the preservation of the righteous, but mercy alone could spare the wicked. Presumably, also, the presence of a group of 50 righteous persons would offer hope for the conversion of others. God entered into Abraham’s reasoning and showed Himself willing to grant mercy to those who did not deserve it, for the sake of “fifty righteous.”
27. But dust and ashes. In this expression, ‘aphar wa’epher, Abraham uses two Hebrew words similar in sound and related in meaning. These words reveal the profound humility of soul he felt in the presence of God. He realized all too well his lowly origin, and the fact that he was destined to return to the substance from which he had been taken (see ch. 3:7, 19).
28. Peradventure. The patriarch presented his case with adroit Oriental tact. His first hypothetical estimate of the number of pious Sodomites was designedly high enough to elicit a favorable response. Realizing, however, that this number was probably too high, he again showed rare diplomacy. Instead of pleading for the city’s safety on the basis of 45 just persons, he protested the thought that it might be destroyed on account of the lack of 5. Encouraged by the continued gracious response of God, he grew bolder, gradually diminishing the number of righteous persons which, in his opinion, should be sufficient to save the city.
Abraham did not request the unconditional sparing of the city, but only its preservation on certain conditions. It would be rash to speculate as to what would have happened had he continued, and reduced the number to less than ten. Perhaps Abraham felt safe in letting the number stand there; besides Lot, his wife, and two daughters at home, were there not Lot’s married daughters and their families also (see ch. 19:14, 15)? Starting out with a number he deemed likely to elicit a favorable response, it is probable that Abraham originally intended to decrease it so long as there appeared to be hope of securing such a response. And divine mercy met Abraham’s intercession without hesitation.
33. Abraham returned. Every man who truly loves God will love his neighbor also, and will sacrifice, if necessary, to promote his neighbor’s well-being. We cannot prevent men from sinning against God, but we can intercede for them and plead with them. God is well pleased with such intercession, because it reflects His own great heart of love. How much the energetic prayer of righteous man often avails! When Abraham drew near to God in love and faith, humbly interceding for sinners, God drew near to him in mercy, graciously acceding to each request. The same experience awaits those today who follow in the footsteps of the father of the faithful.
1. Two angels. The Hebrew reads literally, “there came the two angels,” indicating that they were the same two who had visited Abraham earlier that afternoon (see ch. 18:22). Although it is not stated that their arrival at Sodom occurred the same day they left Abraham, it is so implied here and in v. 27. The distance from Hebron to Sodom was at least 25 mi., over mountainous territory, and the journey would take at least 7 or 8 hours. Since the angels left Abraham in the late afternoon, they could not have reached Sodom before nightfall by ordinary means of travel.
Lot sat in the gate. Lot, who first pitched his tent toward Sodom (ch. 13:12), had in the meantime built himself a house within its walls. In ancient Oriental cities public life centered at the city gate Markets were held there (2 Kings 7:1; Neh. 13:19) and the court sat there (Deut. 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Joshua 20:4; Ruth 4:1; etc.). David sat in the gate to show himself to the people (2 Sam. 19:8), the events of the day were discussed there (Ps. 69:12; Prov. 31:31), and public announcements were made there (Prov. 1:21; 8:3). Why Lot was sitting in the gate is not stated. That he was on the outlook for travelers on whom to bestow hospitality and whom he might protect from the Sodomites, is certain. The explanation that he had been promoted to the office and dignity of judge, though not a necessary inference from Gen. 19:9, is not at all unlikely, particularly in view of his relation to Abraham, who had once saved the whole city from slavery.
Lot seeing them rose up. Recognizing the men to be strangers, Lot, like his uncle Abraham, immediately offered them the hospitality of his own home. Not only did he greet them as Abraham had done, but his offer was expressed in words similar to those of his uncle (see ch. 18:2-5).
2. We will abide in the street. The angels had accepted Abraham’s offer immediately, but appeared reluctant to accept Lot’s. They were testing the sincerity of Lot, proving whether his invitation was merely a hollow form or the earnest desire of his heart. Ancient records reveal that travelers often spent nights in the open (see ch. 28:11). Except for the men of Sodom it would probably not have been a real hardship to do so there, since the cities of the plain were in a semitropical climate. Lot’s consideration for others proved to be the means of his own salvation; he manifested a spirit in striking contrast to the men of Sodom (see Matt. 25:34-40).
3. He pressed upon them greatly. Knowing Lot to be a righteous man, but not being willing at that time to reveal their own identity, the angels consented to take shelter under his hospitable roof. Many centuries later Christ similarly concealed his identity on the way to Emmaus, but yielded finally to the urging of the two disciples (Luke 24:28-30).
4. All the people. This phrase probably signifies a large concourse of men generally representative of all social groups (PP 159).
5. Where are the men? The wickedness of the men of Sodom was clearly demonstrated by their action here (see chs. 13:13; 18:21). News of the arrival of two strangers had spread quickly. The men of the city gathered around Lot’s house, intending to violate the Oriental right of hospitality in order to satisfy their unnatural lusts. On the meaning of “to know” see ch. 4:1. The term is used here in reference to the abominably immoral practice Paul describes in Rom. 1:27, known as sodomy. According to archeological evidence this sin, punishable by death under the law of Moses (Lev. 18:22, 29), was prevalent among the Canaanites. Moses’ emphasis on the fact that both old and young were at the door of Lot’s house shows clearly how justified God was in bringing destruction on these cities (see Gen. 6:5, 11).
7. Do not so wickedly. Lot left the house, carefully locking the door behind him to prevent the mob from entering, and made an earnest attempt to turn his fellow citizens from their evil purpose.
8. I have two daughters. Seeing that no words could change their minds, he made an extreme proposal to save his visitors from dishonor. His belief in the solemn duty of hospitality, so highly regarded among Eastern nations, explains, though it does not justify, his decision. He who had taken a stranger under his protection and care was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life. In some Near Eastern countries the duty of hospitality is still regarded in this light. Only to an Oriental mind, perhaps, would the obligation of a host toward his guests seem to justify, or at least excuse, Lot’s conduct on this occasion. The purity of his two daughters in a city like Sodom is evidence of the great care with which Lot had brought them up, and proves that the offer was not lightly made. The natural concern of Orientals to protect their female relatives was demonstrated upon one occasion by Jacob’s sons (see ch. 34). The fact that such a rash proposal was made at all proves that Lot had exhausted every conceivable means of averting the evil, and was beside himself. He knew full well the wickedness of his fellow citizens (2 Peter 2:7, 8).
9. And he will needs be a judge. Lot’s attempt to frustrate their evil purpose served only to enrage the Sodomites. They would not have anyone telling them what they should do, particularly a foreigner. If Lot had been appointed a judge, as has been suggested (see v. 1), they felt it was high time to get rid of him. It would seem from their language that either as a judge or as a private citizen he had admonished them to amend their evil ways. In their unreasoning rage they therefore threatened to deal with Lot in a more fearful way than they had planned to do with his guests, should he presume to stand longer in their way. It was only the restraining power of God, together, perhaps, with their momentary hesitancy to lay hands on a man whose righteous example had stirred a faint feeling of respect in their debased minds, that prevented the mob from tearing him to pieces on the spot.
11. Blindness. God permitted Lot to make an attempt to change the wicked design of the Sodomites in order that he might be impressed with the degree of their depravity. When his extreme efforts proved unavailing the heavenly visitors stepped in to protect both him and themselves from harm. The Hebrew word here translated “blindness” is used but once elsewhere in the OT (see 2 Kings 6:18-20). In both instances it denotes a supernatural form of blindness. It may not have been total, and perhaps involved only a temporary loss of clear vision that bewildered the mind. That they “wearied themselves to find the door” implies mental as well as visual confusion. Had they been struck totally blind in the usual sense of the word it seems unlikely that they would have persisted in their evil purpose.
12. Hast thou here any besides? By now Lot must have become aware of the supernatural nature of his visitors. It was time for them to acquaint him with the purpose of their mission, and they proceeded to tell him in the plainest possible language of the impending utter destruction of the city. Although Lot’s married children seem to have adopted the life of the people of Sodom, the angels were willing to save them for Lot’s sake should they be willing to leave the city. Though they shared in the sins of Sodom, nothing but their own choice would render their destruction with it inevitable.
14. Lot went out. That sons and daughters are not mentioned again does not prove that Lot had only sons-in-law, nor that these so-called sons-in-law were young men betrothed to the two daughters yet living in his home. Lot believed the angels and put forth an earnest effort to persuade his children to seek safety by leaving the city, but they only ridiculed the idea that God would destroy it.
15. Arise. Apparently Lot had warned his children during the night, and when the sun was about to rise the heavenly angels urged him to flee without delay, with his wife and two daughters. The phrase, “which are here,” implies that Lot had others not “here,” who were unwilling to leave.
16. While he lingered. Lot and his wife believed but found it difficult to leave all their possessions behind. In momentary confusion and bewilderment Lot lingered, undecided as to what he should carry with him as he fled. The angels, who manifested no concern over Lot’s possessions, therefore pulled the four of them away by force, “the Lord being merciful unto him.” Such is the weakness of human nature that even a good man may become so infatuated with the world that he cannot tear himself from it. He is like the wanderer in a snowstorm who, feeling a fatal numbness creeping up his frozen limbs, is tempted to surrender to what he knows to be the sleep of death. He needs someone to rouse him up and urge him on to a place safety.
17. Escape for thy life. The One with whom Abraham had interceded the day before now joins the angels, outside the city walls, and adds imperative urgency to their warning. The need for Christ Himself to join the angels in their appeal to Lot suggests that he and his wife were even yet hesitant about leaving everything behind. Could the destruction not be postponed until they should have opportunity to remove their possessions? Given time, they might even persuade others to accompany them. Why such haste? But Christ appears and commands, “Escape for the life” (PP 160; cf. chs. 18:21, 32; 19:22).
Look not behind thee. Inasmuch as there was barely time enough to escape the fire so soon to descend, further delay could not be permitted. If Lot’s request for time had been granted, he would have found it increasingly difficult to part with the accumulated fortune of a lifetime as the days went on. He might even have decided to remain. His only safety lay in an immediate and complete break with those things that bound his heart to Sodom. So it is with us today.
Escape to the mountain. The plain, which had once been so attractive for its beauty and fertility, had become the most dangerous place on earth, and must be abandoned. How fateful had been Lot’s decision to make this region his place of abode (see ch. 13:11)! He was not to find refuge in the hills (see Ps. 121:1). Here, among the rocks and clefts of the mountains, he would be safe from the lake of fire into which the fair plain was soon to be transformed.
18. Not so, my Lord. Instead of cooperating cheerfully with God’s plan for the preservation of his life, Lot presumed upon God’s great mercy. Referring to the supposed impossibility of escaping to the mountains, he begged for permission to take refuge in the small neighboring city of Bela (ch. 14:2), afterward called Zoar, “little,” on this account. Lot was still reluctant to leave the ease and luxury of city life for what seemed to him a precarious and uncertain existence.
22. Zoar. The fact that Lot had to flee again, into a cave (v. 30), can be taken to indicate that Zoar also was later destroyed. Most authorities assume that it lies under the Dead Sea. If so, it may be near the town later called Zoara by Eusebius and placed at the southeast corner of the Dead Sea on the sixth-century a.d. mosaic map at Medeba (now Madeba).
24. Brimstone and fire. The judgment announced by the angels came suddenly and unexpectedly (see Luke 17:28, 29). Though only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned here, it is clear that the other cities of the plain, Adamah and Zeboim, were also destroyed (see Deut. 29:23; Hosea 11:8; Jude 7). Only the little town of Bela, or Zoar, was spared, and that but briefly (see Gen. 19:30; PP 167).
The phrase “brimstone and fire” is a common Hebrew idiom for “burning brimstone,” sulphur. The miracles by which God has from time to time intervened in the ordinary process of nature generally consist in the use of existing natural forces and elements in an unusual manner. Even today the southern region of the Dead Sea is rich in asphalt (see on ch. 14:3, 10). from rock crevices in the area. Asphalt rising to the surface of the southern part of the Dead Sea gave to it the name Lake Asphaltitis in classical times. Massive lumps of asphalt floating on the surface are often of sufficient size to support several persons. Asphalt, sulphur, and other combustible materials have been reclaimed and exported from this region for years. Neighboring Arabs use the asphalt for protection against garden pests and for medicinal purposes. Whatever the means employed to set the cities afire, the holocaust was beyond question miraculous, for destruction came at the precise time appointed by God.
For centuries the seared landscape of this region remained a mute testimony to the great catastrophe that had turned its fertile plain into a scene of utter desolation. Moses referred to it as an example of what the land of Israel would become as the result of disobedience (Deut. 29:21-24). Classical writers eloquently describe the southern Dead Sea region as a burned-out land of rugged terrain, scorched rocks, and ashen soil. They mention also the uined sites of ancient cities (Diodorus ii. 48. 7-9; Strabo Geography xvi. 2. 42-44; Josephus Wars iv. 8. 4; Tacitus Histories v. 6. 7). In Bible times, what is now the southern arm of the Dead Sea was dry land. In more recent years the level of the sea, which has no outlet, has risen and covered most of the region. Dead trees still protrude form this section of the sea like a ghost forest.
Some scholars have tried to identify the doomed cities with ruins discovered at Teleilat el-Ghassul on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. The weight of evidence, however, points to the southern reaches of the sea as the location of the great catastrophe. That awful event has lived on in the traditions of the region to the present day. It is reflected, for instance, in the Arabic name for the Dead Sea, Bahr Lut, “Lake of Lot,” and of the mountain range bordering on the southwestern shore of the Lake, Jebel Usdum, “Mount Sodom.”
25. He overthrew those cities. This expression is suggestive of an earthquake, but is also used to describe cities destroyed by enemy action so thorough as to leave them like Sodom and Gomorrah (see 2 Sam. 10:3; Isa. 13:19). Repeated reference is made to this catastrophe throughout the OT (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Amos 4:11; etc.). They serve as an example of final judgment by fire on all the wicked (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7).
26. His wife looked back. The angels had led all four of them out of the doomed city and given them explicit instructions as to what to do and what to avoid doing, if they would save their lives. But merely to escape from the city was not sufficient; continued compliance with instructions was necessary. Lot’s wife looked back to the city, where her home and possessions and some of her children were. She now refused to give them up. Her obdurate heart has made her memory a perpetual warning to those who would like to be saved but who are content with halfway measures, who seem to forsake the world, but whose hearts are still in it. Not enduring unto the end, they cannot be saved (see Matt. 24:13; Phil. 1:6). It is well not to forget the solemn admonition of our Lord, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). Greater firmness on Lot’s part in heeding the angel’s command would have meant her salvation (PP 160, 161). The angels had forced her to leave the city, but they could not effect her salvation against her will. She was naturally an irreligious person, probably a native of Canaan (PP 174). She chose to die rather than to leave Sodom. We lament her fate; let us profit by her example.
Pillar of salt. It cannot said how long the salt pillar containing her body remained visible. In some places the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea is lined with salt rock formations, some of them roughly resembling human figures. Travelers have called one or another of them “Lot’s wife.” But to attempt thus to identify any of these would be folly.
27. Early in the morning. Anxious to learn the result of his intercession the day before, Abraham returned to the spot northeast of Hebron where he and the Lord had parted. How great must have been his disappointment when he saw the entire plain aflame and its smoke billowing toward heaven.
29. God remembered Abraham. Unable to save the cities for which Abraham had pleaded, the Lord nevertheless rewarded his intercessory prayer by sparing those who were willing to leave. For Abraham’s sake, as here stated, salvation was offered to the family of Lot.
30. Lot went up out of Zoar. Panic-stricken, Lot soon left Zoar, fearful that it too would share the fate of its four sister cities (PP 167).
36. With child by their father. In this action Lot’s daughters revealed the evil influence of Sodom. They had grown to womanhood in a country where drunkenness and all forms of immorality were rampant; consequently, their judgment was dull and their conscience numb. Lot had been able to protect his daughters from becoming victims of the Sodomites (see v. 8), but he had not been as successful in fixing the principles of right in their hearts. They are more to be pitied than blamed, for Lot himself shared in their sin. He was responsible for the circumstances that led up to it, as he was also for drinking the wine they set before him (see on ch. 9:21). The price Lot paid for a few years in Sodom was the loss of his entire family. The vile and idolatrous Moabites and Ammonites were his only posterity.
37. Moab. Ancestor of the Moabites. His name probably means “of my father,” as the LXX renders it. Although cousins of the Israelites, the Moabites were ever their enemies. Originally they inhabited the country between the Arnon and the Zered, east of the Dead Sea. From the time of David to that of Ahab they were temporarily tributary to their western neighbors, but regained independence under their king Mesha (2 Kings 3:4, 5), who extended his territory northward.
38. Ben-ammi. The name of the ancestor of the Ammonites probably means “son of my people.” By this his mother expressed the fact that his father and mother were of one family stock. Her son was in reality her own half brother, but his ancestors were hers as well. The Ammonites became nomads and lived in the eastern part of the region lying between the Jabbok and the Arnon. The name of their stronghold, Rabbath Ammon, is perpetuated in the name Amman, present capital of the Kingdom of Jordan.
The story of Lot and his family is tragic. A blot lies on his memory to all generations. His sin was forgiven, but the evil of years devoted to pleasure and profit lived after him for generations (PP 168).
1. Abraham journeyed from thence. No reason is given for Abraham’s departure from the grove of Mamre near Hebron (chs. 13:18; 14:13; 18:1) for the southland, the Negeb (see on ch. 13:1). It is likely that God directed his footsteps thither, either in the pursuance of his pilgrim life or that he might be a witness to the inhabitants of the region. Again, his flocks may have required fresh grazing land, or political changes may have disturbed the peace and security of the country. While Abraham’s early confederates at Hebron, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, were Amorites (see ch. 14:13), the Hittites were apparently in control of the region some years later (see ch. 23:3). Critics have declared it impossible for the Hittites to have reached southern Palestine as early as the 19th century b.c., but more recent discoveries prove this to have been so. Some perhaps reached Hebron and expelled the Amorites. If so, Abraham may have moved to the Negeb to avoid the unsettled conditions of the transition period. Whatever may have led him to the southland, he made it his home for about 20 years.
Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh-barnea was about 80 mi. southwest of Hebron, and Shur lay to the west of Kadesh, not far from Egypt (see ch. 16:7). The word “dwelled” seems to indicate that Abraham spent some time in this region, a stay which must have awakened sacred memories in Hagar’s heart (see ch. 16:7-14).
Gerar. Since the southern Negeb was a semidesert region, its pasturelands may have in time proved inadequate. This area, which had but few oases, was later called the “wilderness of Zin.” Turning northward again, Abraham made his temporary abode at Gerar, which lay in a very fertile valley to the south of Gaza. Huge grain silos of the Persian period uncovered in the great mound of Gerar show that it was then the center of a grain-producing area. Though evidence is lacking, the city may have been equally important in earlier times.
2. She is my sister. Although Abraham lived in peace and security wherever he had previously pitched his tent in the land of Canaan, he seems to have mistrusted the king of Gerar, a Philistine prince (see on ch. 21:32). It is paradoxical to find one who had defeated the combined expeditionary forces of four Mesopotamian powers suddenly cowering in mortal fear before a single city prince. It is even more puzzling to discover Abraham, that paragon of faith, abruptly reverting to the very ruse that had brought him so much embarrassment and anxiety in Egypt (see ch. 12:10-20). After the many evidences of the power and protection of God he had witnessed, another dismal failure of faith such as this is strange indeed. Some 20 years had passed since that former mistake, and it may be that time had erased the impression then made.
Abimelech. The name Abimelech, “my father the king,” may in reality have been a Philistine title like that of Pharaoh in Egypt, instead of a proper name. The king of Gerar in Isaac’s time is called Abimelech (ch. 26:8), as is also King Achish of Gath in David’s time (1 Sam. 21:10; cf. Ps. 34, title). The ruler of Gerar seems to have taken into his harem all the unmarried women of this domain who captured his fancy. Even more so than 25 years earlier, it seems strange that Sarah, at the age of 90, was still so attractive as to be desired by a Palestinian prince. To be sure, nearly 40 years of her life still remained. Abimelech may also have intended this marriage to seal an alliance between himself and Abraham. He apparently felt the presence of Abraham a benefit to him (see ch. 20:15).
3. A dream. The dream was God’s usual mode of revealing Himself to the heathen, as He did to Pharaoh (ch. 41:1) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:5). To the patriarchs and prophets God gave visions, though He sometimes spoke to them in dreams also.
Thou art but a dead man. Literally, “you are about to die.” Abimelech contracted the malady that had fallen upon his house (see v. 17).
4. Not come near her. Abimelech was prevented from dishonoring Sarah by the peculiar disease that had overtaken him, but concerning whose nature little is revealed. This statement was made to avoid the possibility that Isaac, soon to be born, might be considered a child of Abimelech rather than of Abraham.
Lord, wilt thou slay? In ancient times dreams were considered as of divine origin, and Abimelech therefore believed that the one who appeared to him was a divine being. The authority with which the one addressing him spoke was obviously superior even to his own, as king.
6. The integrity of thy heart. Abimelech had inadvertently wronged an ambassador of the heavenly King. It would seem that this heathen ruler must have been a man of principle, for his conscience was obviously clear in the matter. This fact indicates that the Philistines were at this time by no means as degenerate as the men of Sodom. Perhaps the same might also be said of other peoples of Canaan. Their iniquity was “not yet full” (ch. 15:16).
7. He is a prophet. This is the first occurrence of the term “prophet,” nabi’. It is derived from the root word naba’, which means “to proclaim,” “to call out,” “to declare.” As used in the Bible, the word “prophet,” nabi’, therefore describes one who proclaims divine messages. These may relate to the past, the present, or the future, and may consist of description, exhortation, instruction, consolation, or prediction. The term conveys, furthermore, the idea of being an intermediary. The English word “prophet” comes from the Greek prophetes, a combination of the preposition pro, “for,” or “on behalf of,” with the verb phemi, “to speak.” He speaks for someone. He may speak to man on behalf of God, or vice versa. It seems clear from v. 7 that Abraham was here spoken of as a prophet in the latter sense; he was to pray to God on behalf of Abimelech.
The fact that the term nabi’ is first used here does not preclude belief that the Spirit of prophecy was found among men from the very beginning (Gen. 9:25-27; Acts 3:21; Jude 14, 15). The charge that the use of this term in the books of Moses proves that they cannot be older than the time of Samuel, before which a prophet was called a “seer” (1 Sam. 9:9), is likewise invalid. As used by Moses the term usually applies to a recipient of divine revelations. During the period of the judges the term “seer,” ro’eh, appears to have come into use and to have held its ground until the time of Samuel, when the older term in turn replaced it.
He shall pray for thee. The value of intercessory prayer is stated forcefully in James 5:16. The promise to Abimelech that he would regain his health through the intercession of Abraham supports the principle that a righteous man may become the channel through which divine blessing can flow to others (see Acts 9:17, 18). It is the purpose of God to direct to His human representatives those who are susceptible to truth.
8. Abimelech … called all his servants. The Hebrew word here translated “servants” includes officials of all ranks. They too were vitally concerned with the situation, and were no doubt with the situation, and were no doubt looking to their king for a solution to the problem.
9. Abimelech called Abraham. The earlier rebuke administered by Pharaoh (ch. 12:18, 19) was even more justified now. Abimelech’s words of censure must have been most humiliating. He who had been commissioned to represent, by precept and example, the true God to the people of Canaan was now the deserving recipient of reproof from one of their pagan rulers. His misconduct not only had marred the happiness of his own home but had also become the occasion of suffering to the people whose hospitality he enjoyed.
12. She is my sister. Abraham defended his conduct on the assumption that there was no “fear of God” in Gerar, and that consequently his life was in danger (see ch. 12:4-13). Furthermore, he justified the subterfuge by the excuse that Sarah was indeed his “sister”—his half sister—as well as his wife. He sought to make it appear that he had not deviated from the strict letter of truth. But his failure to tell the whole truth made him a deceiver. On marriage between brothers and sisters, see on ch. 4:17.
13. At every place. This was not the first occasion on which Abraham had passed Sarah off as his sister. It would almost seem to have been his usual practice, but that heretofore Egypt had been the only place where the ruse caused trouble. Years of success in employing the same deception, since that bitter experience with Pharaoh, had made Abraham forgetful of its lesson of strict rectitude (see Eccl. 8:11). Perhaps the comparative ease with God had rescued him from serious difficulty also tended to make him less cautious.
The secluded life of women, typical in the East, made it relatively easy for Abraham to follow the practice he did. Spending much of their time in the tents, beyond the gaze of curious eyes, few men ever even so much as saw them (see Gen. 18:9). Abimelech’s contact with her must have been accidental, possibly at an unguarded moment when she was away from home, such as drawing water at a public well (see ch. 34:1-4). However that may be, the time for the birth of the promised seed was rapidly approaching (see ch. 21:1), and Satan took advantage of Abraham’s weakness to thwart the divine plan (see on Gen. 12:12-20; cf. Rev. 12:1-4).
14. Abimelech took sheep. Abimelech’s gifts were similar to Pharaoh’s (ch. 12:16), but were given with a different motive. Pharaoh’s gifts were “for the sake of Sarah,” as a dowry, while those of Abimelech were intended to avoid Abraham’s displeasure for the wrong he had suffered.
15. My land is before thee. This seemingly generous offer is precisely the opposite of Pharaoh’s request under similar circumstances (see ch. 12:19, 20). Abimelech sought to make it clear to Abraham that he had intended no wrong and wanted to live on good terms with this wealthy prince from Mesopotamia. Knowing of Abraham’s rescue of the men of Sodom some years earlier, Abimelech may also for that reason have feared reprisal for his deed.
16. A thousand pieces of silver. Although neither the word “pieces” nor the word “shekel” is in the Hebrew text, the latter word is undoubtedly the correct complement of the word “thousand.” Coined money did not exist in pre-Persian times. Precious metals were cast into bricks and evaluated according to weight. Since the weight of the shekel varied widely in different localities and at different times, it is difficult to estimate its present monetary value. A weight found in the ruins of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine gives a shekel of .402 oz. av. (11.4 gr.), one from Ugarit in Syria .335 oz. (9.5 gr.), whereas the Egyptian and Babylonian shekel varies from .31 to .345 oz. (8.8 to 9.8 gr.). If we take a shekel of 11.4 grams (.4 oz. av.) for a “piece of silver,” a thousand would weigh about 25 lb. av. Inasmuch as the buying power of money was much higher then than it is now, this figure should be increased considerably if it is to represent a true picture of the value of this gift. Abimelech probably used the expression “thy brother” in irony, as if he were saying “this ‘brother’ of yours.”
He is to thee a covering of the eyes. The meaning of the Hebrew statement thus translated is obscure. If literal, the “covering” would be a veil for the protection of the face; if figurative, it would be a gift intended to placate ill will. The Hebrew word translated “he” in the KJV, indicating Abraham, could be just as well translated “it,” referring to the gift. If the word refers to Abraham, Abimelech would mean either that he was herewith returning Sarah to Abraham’s protection, or that Abraham should take better care of her in the future. If, on the other hand, it refers to the gift, Abimelech would be saying, “Please accept my gift as evidence of your innocence, and also as a token of my desire to do right by you.” Three details of the context imply that this expression refers to the gift rather than to Abraham: (1) Abimelech desired the friendship of Abraham (see on v. 15). (2) The gift is the center of attention in the preceding statement. (3) The “covering” was to constitute evidence to her companions and to all others that the wrong had been righted and the case settled.
All that are with thee. Perhaps this refers to Sarah’s handmaids, who may have been with her at the time of the incident. “With all other” may refer to other members of Abraham’s large household, or may include all who might learn of it. See also the following paragraph. This suggests too that the “covering” may have been intended, in part at least, to save her “face” before the other members of her household, a most important consideration among Orientals.
Thus she was reproved. This expression in the Hebrew confronts us with two problems. (1) Some ancient versions omit the word “thus,” Heb. “and,” and combine this expression with the preceding phrase, “and with all other.” (2) Whether the original Hebrew read “she” or “you” is uncertain. The vowel pointing which makes the difference was added by the Masoretes several centuries after Christ. If the Masoretes were correct, then Sarah was “reproved” by Abimelech as being primarily to blame for the unfortunate situation. If, however, the Masoretes made the wrong choice, as some ancient versions imply, and if the preceding phrase, “and with all other,” is to be connected with “she was reproved,” the two together would read as follows: “and in all respects thou art justified,” or, “before every one you are righted,” as in the RSV. This rendering would agree more exactly with the context. The word translated “umpire” in Job 9:33, margin, is from the same root as the word here rendered “reproved.”
17. God healed Abimelech. Had restitution not been made, death would have been the result (see vs. 3, 7). The Hebrew word translated “maidservants” refers to female slaves of the royal harem. A different word is employed in v. 14 to describe the “womenservants” included in the king’s gift to Abraham.
18. Closed up. From an Oriental point of view, according to which the bearing of children was esteemed as perhaps the greatest of all blessings, there could be no greater calamity than barrenness. To be childless was a reproach (Gen. 30:23; Luke 1:25; etc.). Furthermore if no more children were to be born to the wives of the family of Abimelech, the family would eventually die out.
1. The Lord visited Sarah. This divine act of grace is called a “visit” of the Lord. The verb here translated “to visit,” when used of a “visit” of the Lord, may refer either to His coming in judgment to punish men (Isa. 24:21; Jer. 9:25; Hosea 12:3; etc.) or, as here, to favor them (Gen. 50:24; Ruth 1:6; 1 Sam. 2:21).
The birth of Isaac was contrary to the usual course of nature (Gal. 4:23; Heb. 11:11). From time to time in God’s dealings with the chosen people He gave them miraculous evidences of His divine power and leadership in order to inspire them with confidence in Him (see John 15:11). These miracles reached a climax in the great miracle of all time—the incarnation, perfect life, vicarious death, glorious resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 3:16).
2. At the set time. Like many of God’s promises, this one was fulfilled precisely on time (see chs. 17:21; 18:10, 14). The coming of the Flood, the deliverance from Egypt, the birth of the Messiah, along with various events foretold by Daniel and John, were in fulfillment of time prophecies (Gen. 6:3; Ex. 12:41; Dan. 9:25; Gal. 4:4). Of the repeated promises made to Abraham of the birth of a son, only those immediately prior to that event made specific mention of the time of the event. At first Abraham was informed only that he would have a son. Later he was told that Sarah would give birth to that son, and only at the very last was he told when the son would be born.
3. Isaac. God had already selected a name for the child (ch. 17:19). Isaac’s name, meaning “he laughs,” was to be a perpetual reminder of the glad occasion when faith became reality (see Gen. 17:17; 18:12; 21:6; Ps. 126:2). The birth of Samuel and that of John the Baptist, both under similar circumstances, also brought great joy (1 Sam. 2:1; Luke 1:58).
4. Abraham circumcised his son. A year earlier Abraham and Ishmael, together with all male members of the household, had been circumcised. The sign of the covenant was now bestowed upon Isaac, the son of the covenant (see on ch. 17:10-14, 23).
5. Abraham was an hundred years old. Exactly 25 years had passed by since the first promise of a son (ch. 12:1-4). Whether Isaac was born at Gerar or Beersheba is not clear (see ch. 20:15; 21:31).
6. God hath made me to laugh. Sarah’s laughter a year previously had reflected cynicism and incredulity, but now she laughed for joy. The steadfastness of Abraham and Sarah through what seemed to them long, dark years of disappointment and delay, was now rewarded. To them the birth of Isaac meant the dawn of a new day (see Ps. 30:5). It was the “earnest,” or token, that the promise in its entirety—the coming of the Messiah, the gospel to all nations, and the eternal home in Canaan—would eventually be realized (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:9, 10). Repeated reference is made to this glad event by Bible writers (see Isa. 54:1; 51:2, 3; Gal. 4:22-28). Like Sarah, “Jerusalem which is above,” “the mother of us all,” rejoices as children of faith are born to her today (Isa. 66:10; Luke 15:10).
8. And was weaned. Among Orientals weaning took place later than it does in Western lands. According to 2 Macc. 7:27, Jewish mothers nursed their children for three years (see also 2 Chron. 31:16). Samuel appears to have been brought to the sanctuary as soon after he had been weaned as he was able to minister before the Lord (1 Sam. 1:22-28). It is an Oriental custom to celebrate the weaning of a child by a ritual feast, at which he is expected to eat a meal of solid food for the first time. This marks the close of infancy.
9. Mocking. Some commentators translate the Hebrew word meṣacheq, KJV “mocking,” as “playing,” and conclude that Sarah’s declaration in the following verse was the result of jealousy. They think she could not endure the thought of Ishmael’s sharing in Abraham’s inheritance. Others explain this text in the light of Paul’s explanation that Ishmael was expelled from his father’s home for persecuting Isaac (Gal. 4:29, 30).
The verb meṣacheq, “mocking,” is from the same root word as Isaac, “to laugh.” Here used in the intensive form, however, it expresses something more than simple laughter—rather, ridicule. Lot seemed to his sons-in-law “as one that mocked,” or made fun of their good judgment; he seemed to be joking (Gen. 19:14). The same word is used of Joseph, who, Potiphar’s wife said, had come “to mock us,” that is, to make sport of her husband’s generosity toward him (ch. 39:14-17). The revelry of the Israelites before the golden calf is also described by the same verb, translated rather inappropriately in the KJV as “to play” (Ex. 32:6). The Philistines called for blind Samson “to make sport” for them (Judges 16:25). The only instance in which the word is used in a favorable sense occurs in Gen. 26:8, where it describes Isaac’s caressing of Rebekah. According to the majority of instances in which the intensive form of this verb is used, then, Ishmael was “always mocking,” or taunting, Isaac.
Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, and therefore about 17 when Isaac was weaned (see ch. 16:3; 21:5). He had no doubt ever considered himself the eldest son and heir of Abraham. The birth of Isaac, however, and the weaning feast made it apparent that Sarah’s son was to replace him, and as a result his jealousy was aroused. Little wonder that Ishmael taunted Isaac on being the younger, and consequently ineligible to the rights and privileges of the birthright.
10. Cast out this bondwoman. Sarah’s words, reflecting jealousy and contempt, hardly seem appropriate for one who had suggested Hagar’s marriage to Abraham in the first place (ch. 16:2, 3). Sarah referred to Hagar as a slave and to Ishmael as the son of a slave. Of course, Sarah had the right to demand that the status of her own son be legally clarified, that no question might arise after Abraham’s death. Sarah therefore called upon her husband to send Hagar away and to disown Ishmael.
11. Grievous in Abraham’s sight. To Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael were intruders, the one a low-caste Egyptian, an alien slave, the other a half-breed youth who would always be causing trouble. Abraham, quite naturally, did not share these feelings. He did not question Isaac’s prerogatives as the promised heir, but Ishmael was also his son. For years he had thought him to be the heir rather than Isaac. Ishmael was his own flesh and blood, and he loved this lad who had been his only son for 14 years. To Abraham, it seemed impossible to comply with Sarah’s wish.
12. Hearken unto her voice. From a human point of view it seems strange that God should approve of Sarah’s somewhat selfish request. Although God was ready to bless Ishmael (see chs. 16:10; 21:13), and did not directly censure Abraham on account of Hagar, yet He never recognized Abraham’s marriage to her. To God, she was ever the “bondwoman,” not his wife. Ishmael’s incessant “mocking” (see on v. 9) made it apparent that he would continue to disturb the peace and harmony of the household during Abraham’s lifetime, and that upon Abraham’s death he would probably press his claim to the birthright by force. It was now clear that Ishmael could no longer remain in the home without danger to God’s plan for Isaac. Abraham had not sought God’s advice in taking Hagar, and that hasty act now made necessary the expulsion of a son whom he dearly loved. At the same time, God comforted Abraham with the assurance that Ishmael, as his offspring, would also share in some of the promise made to him and would become a great nation.
14. Bread, and a bottle. The word “bread” in Hebrew is a collective term for all kinds of food. The “bottle,” a goat’s skin, must have held sufficient water to last from one well to the next. Upon her previous flight Hagar seems to have set out for her home in Egypt (ch. 16:7), and perhaps intended to do so now. Abraham’s generous nature and his love for Ishmael certainly led him to make adequate provision for their journey. It seems that an emergency arose later only because they had missed their way and were wandering aimlessly about in the wilderness until their water was spent. This is implied by the word “wandered,” from a Hebrew verb that means “to err,” “to wander,” “to go astray” (see Ps. 119:176; Isa. 53:6). It was not in the purpose of God for Hagar and Ishmael to return to Egypt, for His promise concerning the boy could not be fulfilled there. The wandering in the desert was apparently a providence of God for (see Acts 17:26).
And the child. This phrase suggests that Hagar had to carry Ishmael as well as the food and water. The fact that Ishmael was now about 17 years old (see on Gen. 21:8, 9) makes it clear that Hagar could not have carried him. The text must therefore mean that Abraham placed some of the provisions upon Hagar’s shoulder and some upon Ishmael’s.
The expulsion of one of his sons must have meant intense suffering for Abraham (see v. 11). But, mindful of his own responsibility for the situation that had developed, he resigned himself to the revealed will of God in the matter. The fate of Hagar and Ishmael seems harsh in the extreme, but this they had made inevitable by their attitude toward Isaac. Had they been willing to accept a subordinate role, they might perhaps have remained in Abraham’s home until Ishmael was grown. Then Ishmael might have gone forth, married, and with a share of his father’s wealth. How often an ill-considered course of action means not only the forfeit of blessings it is our privilege to enjoy but needless suffering as well (see Jer. 5:25).
The wilderness of Beer-sheba. Beer-sheba, the major city of the northern Negeb, the semiarid southland, was the center of various caravan roads leading from trans-Jordan to the coast and from Palestine to Egypt. The wilderness was south of the city.
15. She cast the child. As noted previously, Ishmael was no longer an infant but a grown lad. The word translated “child” is sometimes rendered “young man” (see Gen. 4:23; 1 Kings 12:10). The word “cast,” although seeming to suggest rough treatment, must be understood as in Matt. 15:30, where the sick were “cast” at Jesus’ feet to be healed. This implies only that they were committed to His solicitous care. Hagar committed Ishmael to the shade of the tree, the only available means of relieving his pain. In translating the Hebrew “cast” into Greek, the LXX uses the same word as does Matthew. Though despairing of his life, the mother took care that he should at least breathe out his life in the shade; it was all she could do for him.
16. A good way off. Her leaving of Ishmael suggests that thirst had made him delirious. Her immediate presence could only add to her own suffering without alleviating his.
17. God heard the voice of the lad. The Hebrew word here translated “voice” may mean either audible or inarticulate words uttered in prayer or in despair, or may refer only to his groaning and heavy breathing. The same Hebrew word is also used to describe the roll of thunder, the rustling of leaves, the bleating of lambs, and the blast of a trumpet (see Ex. 20:18; 1 Sam. 15:14; 2 Sam. 5:24). Whatever it was, God heard, and sent His angel to Hagar with words of encouragement and a remedy for the lad’s pain.
19. God opened her eyes. Hagar was directed to a well of water in the immediate vicinity, one that had been there all the time. Divine power did not produce clear water, but clear vision. The desert wells of Palestine were artificially enlarged holes in the ground where the water of natural springs collected, whose openings were concealed by stones to prevent stray animals from falling in. Hagar was simply unaware of the existence of this particular well until providentially directed to it.
20. Became an archer. Under the continued watchcare of God, Ishmael grew up to be a hunter, thus providing for his own and his mother’s needs.
21. The wilderness of Paran. This wilderness region lies between the Gulf of ‘Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez, to the south of Kadesh-barnea. Though Hagar probably revisited her native land to procure a wife for her son, she returned to the desert country of southern Canaan. God Himself probably directed her to the wilderness of Paran in order that there Ishmael might be free from the corruption of Egypt. The northern part of this region, furthermore, was included in the land promised to Abraham. Perhaps it was with this in mind that Hagar chose to make it their home.
22. At the time. This may refer to the events of the preceding chapter, to the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, or to the latter’s marriage.
God is with thee. Having witnessed the blessing of heaven upon Abraham, first in Gerar and then at Beersheba, Abimelech considered it advantageous to conclude a covenant with him. Closer association with so prosperous a man might benefit him also. At first considering himself the superior of Abraham, Abimelech now recognized that Abraham was infinitely superior to him. For this purpose Abimelech and his army commander Phichol went to Beersheba to conclude a treaty with him. Phichol may be a Hebrew name meaning “the mouth of all,” the one who as commander gave orders to Abimelech’s army, or it may be a Philistine name of unknown derivation.
The fact that God is with a man cannot long remain unknown to others. The evident blessing of God upon His loyal representatives produces respect for them in the minds of those who witness their lives. About the humblest Christian is an atmosphere of dignity and power.
25. Abraham reproved Abimelech. Before concluding the proposed treaty, however, Abraham protested the unprovoked expropriation of one of his wells by Abimelech’s men. Though not specifically so stated, the well was returned at this time to Abraham’s ownership (vs. 28-30).
27. Made a covenant. Wherever he went, Abraham followed the sound policy of living at peace with his neighbors (see Jer. 29:7; Rom. 12:18). He had formed a league with Amorite chiefs, Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol, at Hebron (Gen. 14:13). He had placed the king of Sodom under obligation to him by his generosity (ch. 14:23). Now he was ready to conclude a treaty of friendship with a Philistine king. The sheep and oxen here mentioned were probably not a gift to Abimelech, but rather were the animals necessary to the ceremonial conclusion of the covenant (see on ch. 15:9-17). The verb here translated “made” is the same as in ch. 15:18, and means, literally, “to cut.” It refers to the dividing of the covenant animals, between whose parts those participating must walk. This custom was common among Semitic peoples, and was practiced even in Jeremiah’s time (Jer. 34:18, 19). Abraham and Abimelech must have followed it here.
28. Seven ewe lambs. These lambs were not used in connection with the ratification of the covenant. They were either a good-will gift, or payment for the well, which, although dug by Abraham, was apparently on Abimelech’s territory. Abimelech’s acceptance of the lambs was to “be a witness” (v. 30) to Abraham’s rights at the well in question.
31. Beer-sheba. In memory of the pact of friendship, Abraham called the place Beersheba, meaning either the “well of swearing” or the “well of seven.” It is not known whether the number seven entered into the ancient covenant ceremony. In ancient Hebrew the two words “seven” and “swearing,” at least as written, were identical. That Abraham gave “seven” lambs to Abimelech as witnesses of his oath may point to the words “seven,” sheba‘, as having some connection with the act of swearing, shaba‘. However, since this is the only Biblical occasion upon which a gift of seven animals was made in confirmation of an oath, we cannot be certain as to the validity of this suggestion.
Anciently, Beersheba was the southern-most city of the land of Canaan. The expression “from Dan even to Beer-sheba” (Judges 20:1; 2 Sam. 24:2; etc.) or “from Beer-sheba even to Dan” (1 Chron. 21:2) stood for the entire country. Beersheba has been inhabited without interruption since the days of Abraham, and has retained its ancient name to the present day. It belongs to the state of Israel and has grown vastly in a few decades, having in 1972 a population of about 84,000.
32. Land of the Philistines. The statement that Abimelech and Phichol “returned into the land of the Philistines” after concluding a treaty with Abraham at Beersheba implies that the area around this city was outside the recognized boundaries of Philistia. At the same time it was probably under the control of the prince of Gerar in Abraham’s time; otherwise it is unlikely that the question over ownership of the well would have arisen.
This is the first Biblical mention of the “land of the Philistines.” Most modern commentators have seen in this statement the historical mistake of a late author, claiming as they do that the Philistines did not enter Palestine prior to the late 13th century b.c., long after Abraham’s time. There is, however, no reason to doubt the presence of Philistines in Palestine during the patriarchal period. They are mentioned in documents of the north Syrian coastal city of Ugarit before the 15th century b.c. That Egyptian sources mention the Philistines about the year 1200 b.c. for the first time does not prove their nonsettlement of Palestine prior to that time. It shows only that they did not play so prominent a role as they did later in the time of Ramses III, when they and other “peoples of the sea” were so numerous as to threaten for a time to overrun Egypt (see Ex. 13:17).
33. Abraham planted a grove. The word “grove,” reminiscent of the idolatrous cult places of Palestine (Deut. 16:21; Judges 6:26; etc.), seems to imply that Abraham planted a similar sacred grove which he dedicated to the true God. But the translation “grove,” from ’eshel, is erroneous. The word ’eshel, found in similar forms in southern Arabic, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Aramaic, denotes a variety of tamarisk, a shrublike tree native to semiarid regions like the Negeb. It is slow of growth but long of life. Abraham probably planted this particular tree for no other purpose than to serve as a memorial of the transaction concerning the well. Commemorative trees are often planted today.
Called there on the name of the Lord. As elsewhere, Abraham here conducted public worship (see Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18). The object of his worship was “the everlasting God,” literally, “the God of eternity,” in contrast to the heathen deities, which are but the creatures of those who worship them (Hosea 8:6) Abraham worshipped the everlasting Witness of treaties, the eternal Source of the blessings that attended him throughout life, and the immortal Father who never fails His children.
34. Sojourned in the Philistines’ land. This seems to contradict the implication of v. 32 that Beersheba did not belong to the land of Philistia. Apparently, either (1) Philistia had no fixed boundary on its desert side, and Beersheba may have been claimed by Abimelech, or (2) Beersheba was situated on the border of Philistia, and Abraham must often have pastured his flocks across the border.
1. After these things. About 17 tranquil years are passed over in silence. Isaac was now a young man of 20 (see on ch. 21:14; PP 147). It was, as well, 17 years since Abraham had received his last recorded message from God. Suddenly, there came a new revelation, proposing the greatest test that could come to a human being.
God did tempt Abraham. The KJV translators have rendered the Hebrew word nissah, “tempt,” in various ways: (1) When one man tests or proves another. The queen of Sheba came to Solomon “to prove him with hard questions” designed to reveal whether his wisdom was as great as it was reputed to be (1 Kings 10:1). (2) When God tries, tests, or proves a man (Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 16; 13:3; 2 Chron. 32:31). (3) When a man puts God to the test by trying to compel Him to act in accordance with his own proposals. This is presumption, as distinct from faith (Ex. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Isa. 7:12). Inasmuch as the word “tempt” is now generally used to imply evil intent, the word “test” would be preferable here. God never “tempts” any man (James 1:13).
Behold, here I am. This vision, which came to Abraham at night (PP 147), was the eighth occasion on which God spoke to Abraham (Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12). Previous experiences had taught Abraham to recognize God’s voice immediately, and he was ready to answer. This brief introductory conversation consists of but two words in Hebrew, and in this respect differs from similar occasions in the past.
2. Take now thy son. If these words were spoken slowly, as is probable, Abraham must have felt, in sequence, pride, fear, and awe. Repetition was calculated by God to arouse parental affection and to prepare Abraham for the severe test soon to follow. In calling Isaac, Abraham’s “only son,” God implied that he alone was considered a legitimate heir to the promise. This contrasts with the expression of ch. 21:12, 13, where God calls Ishmael “the son of the bondwoman.”
The land of Moriah. The name Moriah appears but twice in the Bible, here and in 2 Chron. 3:1. According to the latter text Solomon built his temple on Mt. Moriah, to the north of David’s city and to the west of the Kidron valley. The land of Moriah must therefore have been the mountainous country round about Jerusalem. The name seems to have been rather uncommon.
Offer him. The sacrifice of human beings, particularly of infants, was common in ancient times. Both the Bible and archeology affirm that the Canaanites practiced such rites. The idea of sacrificing one’s first-born to the deity was therefore nothing strange to Abraham. While God explicitly prohibited such sacrifices (Lev. 18:21), it is not certain that Abraham was clear as to this. Indeed, only on the assumption that he did not understand this divine ban can we explain his failure to protest God’s command to offer up his son.
3. Early in the morning. Abraham seems to have been in the habit of rising early (see chs. 19:27; 21:14). He was a man of action, and now that God had spoken, his only thought was immediate obedience. Anyway, how could he sleep with the weight of this message upon his mind? How impossible it all seemed! What doubts must have tortured his mind! Not trusting himself should he presume to delay, and fearing also the possible opposition and interference of Sarah, he determined to set out immediately for the designated mountain.
In the supreme test of a long, eventful life Abraham obeyed without raising a single question, without offering a single objection, and without seeking human counsel. Where principle is involved, the mature Christian asks no more than a clear perception of duty. His cooperation springs from a heart overflowing with love and devotion. He lives as in the very presence of God, with no human considerations to dim his apprehension of truth and duty. Yet, upon this occasion, what a struggle must have taken place in the heart of the “friend of God,” not as to whether he would obey, but rather for divine assurance that his senses and reason were not deceiving him.
Saddled his ass. The series of terse statements in this verse admirably reflect the calm deliberation and unflinching heroism with which the patriarch proceeded to carry out the divine command. His calm voice and steady hands in no way betrayed the inner emotion of a broken and bleeding heart. Everything needed for the long journey was quickly prepared in a matter-of-fact way. There was no trace of past moments of weakness. As a noble hero of faith, his training complete, Abraham responded immediately when called upon to meet his supreme hour of test. This was the climax of his spiritual experience. He serenely rose to a height never surpassed by mortal man, and qualified for the honor of being called “father of the faithful.”
4. On the third day. Two days of travel brought the travelers—Abraham, Isaac, and two servants—into the land of Moriah. Two sleepless nights had been spent in prayer. Arising early on the morning of the third day, Abraham beheld the divinely appointed sign, a cloud of glory, indicating the mountain on which the sacrifice was to be made (PP 151).
5. Abide ye here. The solemn duty Abraham was about to perform seemed to him too sacred for other human eyes and ears. None but God could understand. For two days he had concealed his thoughts and emotions. Isaac was to be the first to know, and the only one to share with him this hour of passion and pathos.
I and the lad. Each of the three verbs of the sequence thus introduced contains the pronoun “we.” The English translation does not reflect the prophetic faith implicit in the Hebrew. Literally, Abraham said to his two servants, “I and the youth, we will go yonder, and we will worship, and we will come again.” Though he did not understand God’s purpose, he did believe that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Had not God promised, without qualification, that Isaac was to be his heir (Gen. 21:12)? Abraham did not anticipate being spared the gruesome act of slaying his own son, but believed that Isaac would be restored to him. Accordingly, he spoke in faith when he said, “We will come again.” Only by faith was it possible not to expect to return alone, to report to the men that with his own hands he had taken the life of his son and offered him to God (see PP 151, 152). The height of his spiritual experience is evident, not only in his unwavering obedience, but also in his unflinching faith in God’s unfailing promises.
6. They went. Father and son began the ascent in silence, Abraham in meditation and prayer, and Isaac pondering over his father’s unwonted reticence as to the nature and purpose of their journey. Alone with his father, solitude invited Isaac to give expression to his bewilderment over the absence of a lamb.
7. My father. This expression of endearment must have lacerated Abraham’s heart. As used by Isaac, a well-bred young man of a cultured Semitic family, this form of address signified his desire to ask a question. No well-trained son would presume to ask questions or make statements in the presence of his parents without first receiving permission to do so. Abraham gave this permission by replying, “Here am I, my son.”
Where is the lamb? This point-blank question expressed no more than innocent wonder. Nothing in the narrative suggests that Isaac in the least surmised that he was to substitute for the missing lamb. His question was asked in all simplicity of mind, without suspicion or undue inquisitiveness.
8. God will provide. Abraham’s reply constitutes a prophetic utterance from the heights of heroic faith to which his soul had risen. By inspiration it pointed both to the ram of v. 13 and to the Lamb of God, which at the moment were equally beyond his ken. Except for the conviction that he was doing the will of God and that his “only son” would be restored to him, Abraham’s agony at the thought of parting from Isaac would have been beyond endurance. Albeit, the boy’s question must have pierced the father’s heart. Would Isaac understand?
9. Abraham built an altar. Reaching the spot where in later centuries the Temple stood, father and son reared an altar. Salem, the city of Melchizedek, was scarcely more than a stone’s throw to the south. But a little farther, to the northwest, was the hill later known as Golgotha.
Bound Isaac. When all was complete, and nothing remained save the placing of the sacrifice upon the altar, Abraham tremblingly told Isaac all that God had revealed to him, and probably added to that his own faith in Isaac’s restoration. It is difficult to imagine the mingled feelings that must have surged through Isaac’s breast—amazement, terror, submission, and finally faith and trust. If such were the will of God, he would count it an honor to yield his life in sacrifice. A young man of 20, he might easily have resisted; instead, he encouraged his father in the final moments preceding the climax. That Isaac understood and shared his father’s faith was a noble tribute to the careful training he had received through childhood and youth. Isaac became thus a fitting type of the Son of God, who yielded to the will of His Father (Matt. 26:39). In each case the father gave up his only son.
10. Took the knife. Having laid the bound victim upon the wood, Abraham was ready for the last act, the slaying of his son and setting fire to the pile of wood. As a type of the perfect Lamb of God, Isaac offered no resistance and voiced no complaint (see Isa. 53:7).
11. The angel of the Lord called. Whereas in the past God had spoken directly to Abraham, He now sent His angel (see Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12; PP 152).
12. Lay not thine hand. The patriarch had amply demonstrated his faith and obedience and had fully satisfied the requirements of his God. Jehovah did not desire the death of Isaac; in fact, He was not interested in any sacrificial offerings as such. But He has ever desired the willing obedience of His servants (1 Sam. 15:22; Hosea 6:6). So far as the will and purpose of father and son could go, the sacrifice was complete. God accepted the devotion of their hearts as a gift far more acceptable in His sight, and took the will for the deed (Heb. 11:17). The heavenly voice also testifies to God’s rejection of human sacrifices (see Deut. 12:31; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chron. 28:3; Jer. 19:5; Eze. 16:20, 21). The assertions of Bible critics to the effect that the Hebrews, as a part of their regular order of service, practiced the rite of human sacrifice, so common among the Canaanites and other peoples of antiquity, is without foundation. True, in periods of apostasy the Jews did practice this rite, but this was in direct violation of God’s command (see Ps. 106:37, 38; Isa. 57:5; etc.).
13. Abraham went and took the ram. Discovering the ram and accepting its presence as a further token of the providence of God, Abraham did not need to await instructions from God as to what to do with it. Here was the lamb that Abraham had said God would provide (v. 8). The wood, the fire, and the knife had not been brought, nor the altar erected, in vain.
14. Jehovah-jireh. Remembering now his own prophetic words to Isaac, Abraham named the spot Jehovah-jireh, “Jehovah will provide.” This name, Moses adds, gave birth to the proverb, “In the Mount of Jehovah it shall be seen [literally, “provided”].” The meaning of this proverb is somewhat obscure. The word here translated “seen” is the same as that rendered “provide” in v. 8. The proverb is obviously reminiscent of Abraham’s expression of faith that in the amount divinely appointed, God Himself would provide a means of salvation. This proverb constituted an expression of the Messianic hope, whether or not such a meaning was entirely clear to those quoting it. Upon this sacred spot, in the holy of holies of Solomon’s Temple, the Shekinah glory of God later took up its abode. Hard by this mount occurred the rejection by the Jewish leaders of the true Lamb of God.
15. The angel of the Lord. After the ram had been offered, the angel spoke again. Prior to the experience recorded in ch. 22 God had communicated with Abraham seven times (see on v. 1). This is the last recorded divine revelation to Abraham. God accepted his loyalty and obedience and reaffirmed the promises made so often in the past.
16. By myself have I sworn. The purpose of an oath is to provide confirmation of what has been stated. Men call upon God to witness their integrity. Since there is none higher than God (Heb. 6:13), He swears by Himself (see Isa. 45:23; Jer. 22:5; 49:13; etc.). In thus committing Himself, God, for man’s sake, follows a custom familiar to men, to convince them of the dependability of His promises.
17. Possess the gate of his enemies. Here alone among the promises given to Abraham is reference made to the “enemies” over whom his seed should triumph. This is probably a prediction that his descendants would be victorious over their enemies in the future conquest of Canaan. It may include, as well, the triumph of truth over pagan religious systems, that is, the conversion of the heathen through the missionary labor of the spiritual children of Abraham.
20. It was told Abraham. Some unidentified messenger came to Beersheba with news from Abraham’s brother Nahor in Haran. This news takes the form of a brief table of Nahor’s descendants. It is included here by way of showing the descent of Rebekah, soon to become Isaac’s wife.
Milcah. This daughter of Haran, who had married her uncle Nahor (ch. 11:29), had given birth to eight sons, named in the following verses. It is not implied that Milcah had but recently begun to bear children (see on ch. 11:30), but that many years had passed since Abraham last heard from Nahor’s family.
21. Huz his firstborn. This name appears also in the list of Aram’s sons (ch. 10:23). Two distinct individuals are indicated.
Buz his brother. With Dedan and Teman, Buz is mentioned as an Arabian tribe (Jer. 25:23). Elihu was a “Buzite” (Job 32:2, 6). The land of Bâzu, in the Assyrian inscriptions of Esarhaddon, seems to have been the area inhabited by this tribe. Whether the tribe of Buz descended from Nahor’s son Buz is uncertain.
Kemuel. Not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. There was, however, an Ephramite chieftain by this name at the time of the Exodus, and also a Levite of David’s time (Num. 34:24).
The father of Aram. This grandson of Nahor is not the ancestor of the Aramaeans (see ch. 10:22). He may, however, have been named in honor of Aram the son of Shem.
23. Bethuel begat Rebekah. Nothing is known of the other sons of Nahor except Bethuel, his youngest. Bethuel is important as the father of Laban and Rebekah (see chs. 24:15, 24, 47, 50; 25:20; 28:2, 5). The name Bethuel, literally, “dwelling of God,” may indicate that he was a pious man. The omission of Laban’s name from this list suggests that he was not yet born.
24. Thahash, and Maachah. Of Tebah and Gaham nothing is known except their names. Thahash may have given his name to the Tachsi region of the Lebanon, mentioned in the Amarna Letters, and Maachah to a region at the foot of Hermon (see 2 Sam. 10:6, 8; 1 Chron. 19:7; etc.).
That three of Terah’s descendants, Nahor, Ishmael, and Jacob, should each have 12 sons has been pronounced by critical scholars an artificially contrived symmetry. But the critics do not explain why important men like Abraham and Isaac did not have 12 sons also.
1. The life of Sarah. As the mother of all believers (Isa. 51:2; 1 Peter 3:6) Sarah is the only woman whose age at death is mentioned in Scripture. Isaac was 37 years old at the time of her death (Gen. 17:1, 17; 21:5).
2. Kirjath-arba. Abraham had moved back to his former place of abode, near Hebron (chs. 13:18; 18:1). Having lived for almost 40 years in the land of the Philistines (chs. 20:1; 21:31-34; 22:19), he now returned to Canaan proper, a fact Moses specifically notes. Kirjath-arba (Joshua 14:15; 15:13; 21:11), meaning “city of Arba,” was named for one of the giant Anakim, who apparently founded it. The name Hebron was given to the city at a later time.
Mourn for Sarah. Seemingly the only burial rite observed by Abraham. This probably refers to formal mourning—sitting on the ground and weeping in the presence of the dead. Mourning later developed into an elaborate ritual, including such ceremonies as rending the garments, shaving the head, wearing sackcloth, and covering the head with dust and ashes (2 Sam. 3:31; Job 1:20; 2:12).
3. Spake unto the sons of Heth. The inhabitants of the region are here called the sons of Heth, or Hittites (v. 10). During Abraham’s first period of residence the Amorites had been in possession of Hebron (see on ch. 20:1). Critical objection to the presence of Hittites in southern Palestine at this early period is not confirmed by the latest archeological findings.
In fact it is in the light of the Hittite laws that some details connected with this story can best be explained. (See vs. 11, 17, and M. R. Lehmann in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 129 [Feb., 1953], pp. 15-18.
4. I am a stranger. Abraham’s courteous approach to the Hittites, the “people of the land,” is noteworthy (vs. 7, 12, 13). He frankly admitted his status as a sojourner and made no claim to any of the land by right (see Heb. 11:13). God had promised him all of Canaan. With hundreds of retainers he had defeated the allied expeditionary force from Mesopotamia (Gen. 14). These very Hittites recognized him as a “mighty prince” (ch. 23:6). Yet, in humility, Abraham did not present his neighbors with a demand; he requested permission to secure title to a piece of land, not by right, but as a favor and for a price.
A buryingplace. This is the first grave mentioned in Scripture. Cremation was practiced by many pagan nations of antiquity, but the Hebrews preferred interment. The desire to be buried on one’s own land is common to people of all ages, races, and levels of culture.
6. Thou are a mighty prince. The Hittites replied obligingly to Abraham’s request, reflecting his courtesy. Declining to accept his own appraisal of his status among them, “a stranger,” they acknowledged him as a “mighty prince.” Literally, “prince of God,” which according to a familiar Hebrew idiom may legitimately be translated “mighty prince,” as in the KJV. In Hebrew, similarly, the “great mountains” of Ps. 36:6 are literally the “mountains of God,” and the “goodly cedars” of Ps. 80:10, the “cedars of God.” In designating Abraham as “a mighty prince,” the Hittites voiced their recognition of Abraham as a man whom God had favored.
None of us shall withhold. They heartily approved of Abraham’s request. To begin with they offered to make their own burial grounds available to him—a truly courteous gesture.
7. Abraham stood up. Oriental courtesy, tact, and bargaining procedure are obvious in the arrangements between Abraham and the sons of Heth. Abraham expressed his appreciation by bowing, a common Oriental gesture of gratitude. Meeting no opposition to his rather vague suggestion, Abraham next advanced a concrete proposal.
8. Intreat for me. In typical Oriental fashion, Abraham did not direct his petition to Ephron himself, but requested the elders of the city to use their influence in securing the desired property. They were to be his go-betweens in conducting the transaction. Such a procedure would result in concluding the agreement with greater dispatch, and would also avoid misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. The good name of the entire community would ensure a fair deal, and would protect both Abraham and Ephron from criticism.
9. Machpelah. This name has been explained in various ways. Some have taken it as a proper name, others as descriptive of some peculiarity of the cave. It is from the root kaphal “to double,” suggesting that it may have been a double cave, or perhaps one with two entrances. The first interpretation seems preferable. In this cave were deposited, successively, the remains of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob. (chs. 25:9; 49:31; 50:13). Rachel alone, of the great patriarchal family, was absent (ch. 35:19). Machpelah has been identified with two caves, one above the other, beneath a Mohammedan mosque on a slope near Hebron. Access was forbidden for centuries, but an exception was made in 1882 for the future George V of England and his brother. Since the first world war several Christians have had the opportunity of visiting the upper cave, which contains stone markers bearing the names of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah. These slabs are supposed to mark their actual tombs, in the rock-hewn cave below. Whether this very ancient tradition agrees with the facts cannot be determined until scientific study is permitted in the lower cave.
11. The field give I thee. All such transactions were made at the city gate (see Gen. 34:20; Ruth 4:1). Ephron, who was obviously one of the nobility present, and was now mentioned by name, spoke. He offered Abraham the field containing the cave, ostensibly as an outright gift. This offer follows a good Eastern custom that has been kept alive in some places to the present day. Everyone knew, of course, that this offer was not meant seriously. Ephron was unwilling to sell the cave without the field.
The reason for Ephron’s eagerness to sell the whole property and not simply part of it, lies in the Hittite laws (Nos. 46, 47), which allow a release of feudal service only if a whole field is sold, but not if it is disposed of in pieces. Hence, if Abraham had bought only the cave Ephron’s tax burden would not have been lightened, whereas Abraham’s eventual purchase of the whole property transferred Ephron’s feudal obligations to the purchaser Abraham.
I will give thee money. Recognizing in Ephron’s answer his willingness to let him have the cave if he would purchase the field containing it, Abraham bowed again in gratitude. He, of course, declined to accept Ephron’s property as a gift, but asked the price by stating his desire to pay for it.
15. Four hundred shekels. About $116 (see on ch. 20:16). Ephron now named his price, implying that it was a mere trifle for a rich man like Abraham. Although the price appears most reasonable in terms of modern values, in the time of Abraham it must have seemed exorbitant. Babylonian records reveal that average fields were then sold at 4 shekels an acre, and the most fertile gardens at 40 shekels an acre. According to the Babylonian standard Abraham should have been able to buy a field of 100 acres for his money. Though we do not know how large Ephron’s field was, Moses seems to leave the impression that Ephron took advantage of Abraham’s predicament to make a good profit for himself. Otherwise Ephron would not have offered Abraham the field in addition to the cave (see on v. 11).
16. Abraham weighed. Desiring to avoid any feelings of enmity, Abraham as a Semite at the mercy of the Hittites, paid without question rather than bargain over the price. Then as now such a procedure was customary throughout the Orient, and Ephron undoubtedly expected Abraham to do accordingly. As a “mighty prince,” a wealthy nomad chief, Abraham may have felt that bargaining was beneath his dignity, or, perhaps, he deliberately chose to avoid a reputation for sharp dealing. He paid in full on the spot, according to customary commercial standards, as the phrase, “current money with the merchant,” indicates.
17. The field. Some stipulations of the contract, no doubt found in even greater detail in a written deed, are here given. Numerous such contracts of that time from Abraham’s old home, Ur, and elsewhere in Mesopotamia, present a clear picture of the form of such a contract. Abraham’s title deed no doubt contained an exact description of the property and its location, and listed the trees and other accessory items on it, in this case including the cave. If, for instance, the trees had not been specifically included, Ephron could have specifically included, Ephron could have claimed the harvest from them every year.
This is once more an interesting detail proving that Hittites were involved in the transaction, since the listing of the exact number of trees at each real estate sale is a characteristic trait in Hittite business documents.
Before Mamre. That is, “to the east of Mamre” (RSV).
19. Abraham buried Sarah. The cave was situated near Mamre, where Abraham had lived before the birth of Isaac. In sight of the grove that had been their home for so many years, where they had shared their joys and their sorrows, their disappointments and their hopes, Abraham laid his beloved wife to rest.
Before Mamre. The Hebrew expression here translated “before” is at times to be understood as “to the east of.” In giving directions a Hebrew customarily thought of himself as facing the east, which was thus “before” him (see Zech. 14:8; Joel 2:20; Deut. 11:24). Mamre was not another name for Hebron, but was simply in that vicinity (see Gen. 13:18).
In the land of Canaan. To emphasize, as in v. 2, that Sarah found her last resting place in a piece of ground belonging to Abraham in the promised land of Canaan.
1. Abraham was old. The events narrated in this chapter took place 3 years after Sarah’s death (ch. 23:1), since Sarah was 90 years old at the birth of Isaac, and Isaac was 40 at the time of his marriage with Rebekah (ch. 25:20). Abraham was about 140 years of age at the time (ch. 17:17).
2. Eldest servant. The most trusted servant of Abraham’s house was Eliezer (PP 173), who half a century previously had been tentatively selected by Abraham as his prospective heir (ch. 15:2). He was now summoned by Abraham for a most important mission.
Thy hand under my thigh. This ancient ceremony accompanying a solemn oath is mentioned again only in ch. 47:29. In both instances the circumstances suggest a promise to deal faithfully after the death of the one to whom the promise was made, that is, with his posterity. The death of the one would not release the other from his oath. Explanations of the custom vary somewhat among commentators. As the source of posterity (see Gen. 35:11; 46:26; Ex. 1:5), the word “thigh” or “loins” (same word in the Hebrew) has been considered as pointing to Abraham’s future descendants, in particular to Christ, the promised Seed. If so, the oath was, as it were, sworn by, in particular to Christ, the promised Seed. If so, the oath was, at it were, sworn by, or in the name of, the One that was to come. Other interpreters have considered the thigh as symbolic of lordship or authority, and the placing of the hand beneath it an oath of allegiance to a superior.
3. Take a wife. Although Abraham was to live another 35 years (cf. ch. 25:7, 20), he seems to have felt rather feeble at this time (v. 1). The authority given Eliezer in the selection of a wife implies a commendable submissiveness on the part of Isaac, who was already 40 years of age. In ancient times, as in the Orient today, parents selected marriage partners and made wedding arrangements for their children. This in no way implied that the wishes of the young people themselves were ignored (see vs. 58, 67; PP 171). The long delay in planning for Isaac’s marriage was probably due to Abraham’s desire to avoid taking a Canaanite wife for him, and to the fact that heretofore he had not found it convenient to arrange for one from Haran (see vs. 3-6). The death of Sarah had perhaps added a sense of urgency to the matter.
Of the Canaanites. Aware of the growing licentiousness and idolatry of the Canaanites, and of their impending doom, Abraham desired to preserve the purity of the promised seed. His own experience with Hagar, and the experiences of Lot and Ishmael, had taught him the danger of alliances with people of heathen background (PP 174). Furthermore, God had already forbidden intermarriage with the Canaanites, a prohibition later incorporated into the Mosaic legislation (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3).
4. Unto my country. Not to Ur of the Chaldees but to Haran, both of which were in Mesopotamia. Though not free from idolatry, Abraham’s relatives there preserved to some extent the knowledge and worship of the true God (see Gen. 31:19; Joshua 24:2; PP 171). Therefore a daughter-in-law from among them seemed far preferable to one form among the degraded Canaanites.
6. Bring not my son thither. Abraham solemnly charged Eliezer not to permit Isaac to go to Mesopotamia. He left that neither he nor his son was at liberty to return, even for a visit. This, together with his advanced age (v. 1), probably influenced him not to return in person to obtain a wife for his son.
7. He shall send his angel. This tender expression of confidence in divine guidance reveals Abraham’s abiding conviction that he and his affairs were under the direction and protection of God. The same assurance of divine leadership given to Eliezer was afterward promised the people of Israel (Ex. 23:20) and the Christian church (Heb. 1:14).
8. Thou shalt be clear. In view of the of sacred and binding nature of his oath, Eliezer felt justifiable concern as to his responsibility in case no woman would return with him to Canaan. Abraham assured Eliezer that God, who had led thus far, could be counted on not to desert him now. Eliezer could set out confident in the successful conclusion of his mission. But if for any reason the contrary should prove true, he was to consider himself free from further obligation with respect to the oath, except that under no circumstance was Isaac to be permitted to go to Mesopotamia to seek a wife. Abraham no doubt feared that Isaac might be tempted to remain in Mesopotamia, and so thwart the divine purpose.
10. Ten camels. On the use of domesticated camels in Abraham’s time, see on ch. 12:16. Abraham left the entire planning and execution of this mission to the discretion of his trusted servant Eliezer. The statement that “all the goods of his master were in his hand” shows him to have been a man of experience and sound judgment. He had now been with Abraham for more than half a century (see chs. 15:2; 16:3).
Went to Mesopotamia. The Hebrew term here translated Mesopotamia is ’Aram-naharayim, literally, “Aram of the two rivers.” This land, where the Mitanni flourished at the time of Moses, was called naharina by the Egyptians. It is in northern Mesopotamia between the upper Euphrates and Chabur rivers.
The city of Nahor. Until about 1930 this was thought to be only another name for Haran (see chs. 27:43; 28:10). However, cuneiform tablets of the 18th century b.c., brought to light in Mari, an Amorite city on the central Euphrates, mention Til-Nahiri, “the city of Nahor,” as a town of the Haran region. The “city of Nahor” was therefore not Haran itself, but a separate settlement founded by Nahor and called after him (see on ch. 11:31).
11. The time that women go out. Nothing is said about the journey itself, which must have taken many days, and Moses continues the narrative when Eliezer reaches his destination. The caravan of ten camels had arrived at the well outside the town of Nahor, and they knelt down to rest and to await a drink. From remote antiquity it was the Oriental custom for women to draw water and to carry it home, in either jars or skins (Ex. 2:16; 1 Sam. 9:11). Eliezer considered such an occasion a good opportunity to observe the marriageable young women of the city and to decide upon a suitable wife for his master’s son.
12. O Lord God. Brought up in the religion of his master and being himself a firm believer in the true God, Eliezer silently prayed for wisdom, guidance, and success. This praying servant is a cheering example of the fruits of Abraham’s devoted care for the souls of his household (ch. 18:19). This, the first recorded prayer in the Bible, is expressive of childlike faith. Eliezer was well aware of the great responsibility which was his, of returning with a woman who would bring blessing and not a curse upon Abraham’s house, one who would be a helpmeet for her husband rather than a contributor to his downfall. He therefore asked for a sign to guide him in his choice. Since it was no easy task to draw water sufficient for ten thirsty camels, the proposal posed a real test of character. Eliezer wished to be sure that the woman he would escort back to Abraham was naturally friendly, ready to help, and able to work.
15. Rebekah came. Not by accident but by providence, his prayer was answered before it had been completed. This was not the only occasion upon which God’s answer came so promptly (Dan. 9:23; Isa. 65:24). He is always ready to hear a sincere prayer uttered in faith. The meaning of Rebekah’s name is obscure. Concerning her relationship, see on Gen. 22:23.
Her pitcher upon her shoulder. It is the habit among some Eastern peoples to carry water jars on their heads, but Palestinian and Syrian women do so upon their shoulders.
16. Very fair. Moses acquaints his readers with Rebekah immediately upon her appearance in the narrative. Like Sarah (ch. 12:11) and Rachel (ch. 29:17), Rebekah was very attractive. Her virginity is also emphasized, by repetition. This was truly an important virtue for her who should become the mother of an entire nation.
She went down to the well. The well was a natural spring, as the Hebrew word ‘ayin indicates. Springs were usually to be found in a wadi, the dry bed of a seasonal stream, whereas towns were built on mounds. People therefore of necessity went “down” to the source of water supply.
19. Water for thy camels also. Rebekah, who had been asked only for a drink of water for a weary traveler, immediately manifested her kindly disposition. Her offer to draw water for the camels was voluntary and not a requirement of custom. It demonstrated a genuine desire to help those who were in need of assistance. It should not be forgotten, however, that her kindness was utilized in the providence of God as evidence that He had chosen her to be Isaac’s wife. Her offer could be the full answer to Eliezer’s prayer only if it came as a natural reflection of character.
21. Wondering at her. Eliezer was so fascinated by Rebekah’s unaffected willingness to be of help that he allowed her to draw water for his ten camels without so much as offering assistance (see Gen. 29:10; Ex. 2:17). He was startled by the precision and dispatch with which Providence had answered his prayer for guidance. Momentarily he hesitated; could it be true? Thus the disciples wondered when Peter, after his release from prison by an angel, stood suddenly before them. Though engaged in prayer for his safety, it was difficult for them, to accept the answer when it came (Acts 12:12-17).
22. A golden earring. This present, it should be noted, was not her dowry but a token of Eliezer’s gratitude. Though suspecting that she was to become Isaac’s wife, Eliezer did not as yet even know her name, much less her family relationship to Abraham. The word translated “earring,” “jewel for the forehead,” is from the Heb. nezem, a ring for the nose. Since ancient times Bedouin women have worn nose rings, either in the cartilage of one side or in the central wall of the nose (see Isa. 3:21; Eze. 16:11, 12). Among Bedouins the nose ring is still the customary engagement gift. The golden ring probably weighed about one fifth of an ounce, and the two golden bracelets 4 or 5 oz. At the current price for gold their combined value would be about $169. Little wonder that Laban was surprised (v. 30)!
25. Room to lodge in. Eliezer was convinced that the young woman whose acquaintance he had made in so remarkable a way was the one chosen by God to accompany him back to Canaan. Hospitality seems to have been the common practice at Rebekah’s home; otherwise she would not have felt at liberty to invite a stranger to stay with them.
26. Bowed down his head. The faithful servant of Abraham was one of those happy individuals who not only pray for help but also express gratitude upon receiving it. He gave God the glory for the success that had attended his mission. Eliezer is a noteworthy example of the value of family worship. Abraham had never considered his religion to be merely a personal possession, but had lived it, taught it (ch. 18:19), and made his vast family participants in the requirements and privileges of the divine covenant (ch. 17:23). They had come to believe in the true God and to imitate Abraham’s example of faithful devotion to Him. Eliezer’s two prayers at the well of Nahor’s city emphasize the value of missionary work in the home.
28. Her mother’s house. Several explanations have been given to account for Rebekah’s going to “her mother’s house” rather than to her father’s: (1) Her mother was head of the family. This cannot be correct, because the men of the family decided the question (vs. 31, 50-59). (2) Her father, Bethuel, was dead, and the person by that name in v. 50 was a younger brother. (3) In many Oriental countries the women have separate quarters, and Rebekah naturally went there first to tell of her experience. (4) The expression “mother’s house” really means “grandmother’s house,” according to a common Semitic custom by which a grandmother may be called mother. Since Rebekah’s grandmother Milcah is mentioned repeatedly (vs. 15, 24, 47), whereas her mother is not mentioned at all, the latter may have been dead. Thus Rebekah may have resided with her grandmother Milcah, who, being a widow, kept a separate household. The third suggestion appears to offer the best explanation.
29. Laban. The “blond one,” probably Rebekah’s younger brother (see on ch. 22:23). His somewhat inglorious character, evident later in his dealings with Jacob, is reflected in the fact that upon seeing the rich gifts his sister had received he ran out immediately to meet Eliezer.
31. Thou blessed of the Lord. Though an idolater (ch. 31:30), Laban also knew and cherished the worship of Jehovah (PP 171). Rebekah’s account of her providential encounter with Eliezer at the well no doubt reminded the brothers of Abraham’s divinely appointed migration to Canaan and reports of his success there.
33. I will not eat. Oriental politeness would normally postpone the transaction of business until after the meal (see Homer Odyssey. iii. 69). Eliezer, however, felt his errand to be so pressing that he could not pause even to eat so long as the matter continued to weigh upon his heart and its outcome remained uncertain. His diligence, here manifested, testifies to the fact that Abraham’s trust in him was fully justified.
49. Tell me. After recounting the story of his master’s prosperity, of the birth of Isaac, of his own oath to seek a wife for Isaac among his master’s relatives, and of the providential way in which he had been led to Rebekah’s home, Eliezer, with solemn earnestness, pressed for an immediate decision.
50. Proceedeth from the Lord. In harmony with normal Oriental custom, Laban and Bethuel must approve of Rebekah’s proposed marriage to Isaac. Since the Lord had already decided the matter, however, they had no alternative but to concur. So far as they were concerned, Jehovah’s decision was not subject to further debate on their part, and Eliezer was free to take Rebekah to Canaan.
52. Worshipped the Lord. This is Eliezer’s third prayer during his brief stay at the city of Nahor (see vs. 12, 26). It seems that every incident of life was to him an occasion for prayer, either for guidance or for thanksgiving. Others can well trust a man who in his turn trusts God. How much more successful we would be in all our temporal affairs if we, like Eliezer, would recognize God in everything we do!
54. Send me away. Eliezer was impatient to complete his mission by reporting its success to Abraham, lest delay should become a cause of concern to him. As might be expected, Rebekah’s relatives were disturbed at the thought of so sudden a separation from her. Their concern was for adequate time to prepare for her departure, and also that they might bid her an appropriate farewell. According to Oriental custom this would no doubt include several days of feasting and merrymaking.
56. Hinder me not. Eliezer’s insistence and their consideration for Rebekah led Laban to put the decision up to her. Would she be willing to forgo the pleasure of a few more days in her girlhood home, in order to please her husband-to-be, and his father? Her ready and willing response reflects maturity of judgment, an unselfish spirit, and recognition that henceforth her first duty was to be toward her husband.
60. Be thou the mother. Rebekah’s family invoked upon her the blessings promised by God to Abraham. A numerous posterity is still considered by Orientals to be the greatest of blessings, and was the main object of their wish for her. For the expressed desire that her seed should possess the gate of their enemies, see on ch. 22:17.
62. Isaac came from the way. As with the journey to Mesopotamia, nothing is said of the return trip to Canaan. Moses passes immediately to the scene of welcome to her future home. This event occurred at the well Hagar had named Lahai-roi (ch. 16:14), in the Negeb to the south of Beersheba (see on ch. 12:9). Since Sarah’s death, which had occurred at Hebron (ch. 23:2), Abraham had apparently once more changed his place of abode.
63. Went out to meditate. The exact meaning of the Hebrew word śuach, translated “meditate” in the KJV (margin, “to pray”) and the RSV, is not certain. The idea of meditation is found in the oldest non-Semitic versions of this text, the LXX and the Vulgate. The oldest Semitic versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum of Onkelos, render it “to pray.” This was adopted by the great Hebrew grammarian Kimchi of the Middle Ages, the Reformer Luther, and certain other expositors. The fact that Rebekah became a comfort to Isaac while he was still mourning the death of his mother (v. 67) has led some commentators to explain the word śuach as meaning “to lament.” The precise meaning of this word being as yet uncertain, it would seem best to accept for the time being that of the oldest available translations, as the KJV and RSV have done. Isaac may have been meditating upon, or praying for, Eliezer’s safe return with his bride-to-be. He was, to be sure, anticipating their imminent return from Mesopotamia. His future happiness would depend in large measure upon the kind of wife Eliezer should bring back with him. Appropriate indeed it would be for Isaac to kneel and pray for the blessing of God upon his new home! Those husbands and wives whose union comes in answer to prayer will prove to be the greatest blessing to each other.
65. She took a vail. Rebekah was eager with anticipation to greet Isaac, but the custom of her country did not allow the groom to see his bride’s face until the marriage had been concluded (see ch. 29:23, 25). Her modesty, furthermore, was revealed in yet another way. To meet her future husband for the first time she chose to descend from the camel to the ground.
66. Told Isaac. Although nothing is said of Abraham, he doubtless received his daughter-in-law in the most gracious manner and with many benedictions. The account of Eliezer’s finding of Rebekah must have afforded him much satisfaction. It is easy to think of this occasion being solemnized by Abraham in a thanksgiving service.
67. Into his mother Sarah’s tent. Perhaps that same day, or the day following, Isaac led Rebekah into his mother’s tent. Empty for three years, it now became quarters for Rebekah and her maids. This implies that Rebekah took the important place of Sarah in the household of Abraham. Isaac’s marriage ceremony itself probably consisted of a simple declaration, before witnesses, of his intention to take Rebekah as his wife (cf. Ruth 4:10-13).
And he loved her. Isaac had every reason to love Rebekah. She was not only most beautiful (v. 16) but of a kind, cheerful, and considerate disposition. She seems to have been, generally speaking, a paragon of feminine virtue (see Prov. 31:10-31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5). Isaac’s careful training and submissive spirit have already been noted (see on ch. 22:9). Their home must have been a very happy one.
1. Again Abraham took a wife. Though Abraham’s loneliness following the death of Sarah had impressed upon him an awareness of his own advancing age (see on ch. 24:1), he still enjoyed remarkable physical and mental strength and lived for 38 years after her death. Isaac’s marriage may have left Abraham even more lonely than before and led him to take another wife to make his last years happy ones. That this new wife, Keturah, meaning “incense,” is called a concubine, like Hagar (v. 6), does not imply that he had married her while Sarah was still alive, though this is not impossible. The context conveys the impression that Abraham’s marriage to Keturah occurred after Sarah’s death.
2. She bare. Abraham was 137 years of age at the death of Sarah, and 140 at the marriage of Isaac. He who blessed the aged patriarch with a son at the century mark of life now granted him the joy of additional sons and daughters. Nothing could make the sunset hours of life brighter for the Oriental heart than to be surrounded by a large and happy family. With one exception the Keturah sons of Abraham, as far as can be identified, settled in Arabia. Like Ishmael, they migrated to the south and east of the Negeb.
Zimran. Possibly meaning “antelope,” and tentatively identified with the Arabian town of Zambran, between Mecca and Medina.
Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian. Though nothing is known concerning the first two sons, other than their names, the tribe of Midian appears often, both in the Bible and in inscriptions. This tribe settled in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula and in northwestern Arabia across the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses later found refuge among them, in the house of Jethro, who worshiped the true God (Ex. 2:15; 3:1; 18:1-6). During the time of the Judges the Midianites repeatedly attacked the people of Israel (Judges 6 to 8).
Ishbak and Shuah. Ishbak may be identified with the people of Jasbuqu, mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions. Shuah seems to have been the ancestor of a tribe to which Bildad, one of Job’s friends, belonged (Job 2:11; 8:1; etc.). If this is correct, the tribe of Shuah settled down in northern Mesopotamia instead of in Arabia with the other sons of Keturah. The cuneiform texts mention a land Sûchu, south of Carchemish on the Euphrates.
3. Sheba, and Dedan. The descendants of Jokshan, Sheba, and Dedan, cannot be identified with the southern Arabic tribes of the same names, mentioned in ch. 10:7 as coming from Ham. It is inconceivable that Moses should have attributed the origin of these tribes to the Hamite Cush in one text and to the Shemite Abraham in another. Their identification is uncertain.
Asshurim. This tribe is mentioned in a Minaean inscription of northwestern Arabia. Of the other two Dedan tribes, the Letushim and Leummim, nothing is known.
4. The sons of Midian. Ephah, Midian’s son, apparently gave his name to the Arabic tribe appearing in cuneiform inscriptions under the name Chajapâ. The other sons have not yet been identified.
6. Sent them away. Toward the close of his life Abraham appointed Isaac his legal heir (see ch. 15:4) and bequeathed to him most of his property. To the sons of Hagar and Keturah he gave token gifts. In view of Abraham’s great wealth and hundreds of servants (see chs. 13:2; 14:14), he was in a position to give each of these seven sons a number of servants and some of his flocks without perceptibly diminishing Isaac’s inheritance. Presumably, each son received sufficient for a good start in life. Sending these other sons “eastward” while he lived was a precaution against strife after his death, particularly in respect to the right Isaac to the land of Canaan.
8. Gave up the ghost. Literally, “he expired.” The RSV translation, “breathed his last,” is preferable (see v. 17; ch. 35:29).
9. Isaac and Ishmael buried him. As the chief heir of Abraham, Isaac is mentioned first. That Ishmael, Isaac’s older half brother, participated in the last rites for their father is evidence of a reconciliation between them (see also ch. 35:29). The sons of Keturah are not mentioned, their distant habitat, perhaps, making it impossible for them to arrive in time for the funeral at Hebron.
11. Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi. God honored Isaac as Abraham’s heir, and repeated to him the promises and blessings vouchsafed to Abraham. For a time after Abraham’s death Isaac continued to reside at Lahai-roi, where his father’s last years had been spent and where he had met Rebekah for the first time (ch. 24:62). It was now 35 years since that memorable event in his life, and his own sons, Jacob and Esau, were 15 years of age (see v. 26).
12. The generations of Ishmael. A new section begins, in which Moses traces briefly the family and fortunes of Abraham’s eldest son before proceeding with his main theme, the line of Isaac.
13. The names of the sons. That the sons of Ishmael gave their names to tribal divisions and geographical localities is clear from v. 16. Some are either mentioned again in the Bible or are found as place names in northern Arabia. The following can be identified:
Nebajoth; and Kedar. These are mentioned also together in Isa. 60:7. Kedar alone appears in several Bible passages, Isa. 21:16 and Eze. 27:21 designating his posterity as an Arabic tribe.
Adbeel. Mentioned elsewhere only 1 Chron. 1:29. This may be Idibi-il, mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III as a tribe near the border of Egypt.
14. Mishma. Identified with the Arabic tribe Isamme’, of the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.
Dumah. Probably a north Arabian oasis mentioned repeatedly in ancient texts. Its modern name is El Djouf.
Massa has been identified with a tribe of northern Arabia, called Mas’u in the cuneiform inscriptions of Mesopotamia.
15. Hadar. The best Hebrew manuscripts read Hadad, found in cuneiform inscriptions of Chudadu. In Hebrew the letters equivalent to “r” and “d” are very similar, and one may easily be mistaken for the other.
Tema. Mentioned also in Job 6:19; Isa. 21:14; and Jer. 25:23. This is the modern Teima in northwestern Arabia. In ancient times it was an important trade center, and became for some years the residence of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, father of Belshazzar.
Jetur, Naphish. Found in 1 Chron. 5:19 fighting the trans-Jordanian tribes of Gad, Manasseh, and Reuben. It is probable that the name Ituraea mentioned in Luke 3:1 as a region south of Mt. Hermon was derived from Jetur.
16. Castles. Literally, “encampments.”
17. The life of Ishmael. Ishmael’s long life was doubtless due to the vigor he inherited from his father, Abraham. On the expressions “gave up the ghost” and “was gathered unto his people” see respectively on v. 8 and ch. 15:15.
18. From Havilah unto Shur. The location of Havilah is uncertain (see on ch. 2:11). For this reason the eastern extent of the Ishmaelite dominion in Arabia cannot be determined. Its western border was Shur (chs. 16:7; 20:1), not far from the land of Egypt.
As thou goest toward Assyria. This does not mean that the Ishmaelite domain extended as far as Assyria, in Mesopotamia, but rather its extension in a general northerly direction. The Ishmaelites therefore bordered on Egypt in the west and Havilah to the southeast and extended some distance northward into the north Arabian Desert.
He died in the presence of all his brethren. Naphal, “to fall,” here translated “died,” may also mean “to encamp,” as an army (Judges 7:12, 13), and “to divide,” as an inheritance (Ps. 78:55). The expression, “He died in the presence of all his brethren,” should be translated in harmony with the prediction of ch. 16:12, “he settled over against [close by] all his people” (RSV).
19. The generations of Isaac. Moses returns to the main theme of his narrative, the history of the chosen people. Some events described in the succeeding verses occurred during the lifetime of Abraham. Since Abraham lived to be 175 years of age (ch. 25:7), and was 100 at the birth of Isaac (ch. 21:5), he must have been 160 years old at the birth of Esau and Jacob (ch. 25:26), who were therefore 15 years old at his death. Ishmael’s death, at the age of 137 (v. 17), occurred much later, when Jacob and Esau were 63. Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac (ch. 16:16), and was therefore 74 years old when Isaac’s two sons were born. Chronologically out of place, the new section finds its logical place here in the narrative because it is Moses’ purpose to present Esau and Jacob’s life story without a break.
20. The Syrian. “Syrian,” more accurately, “Aramaean,” according to the Hebrew. Bethuel, a grandson of Terah (ch. 22:20-23), was, like Abraham, a descendant of Shem’s son Arphaxad (ch. 11:10-27) and not of Shem’s son Aram, ancestor of the Aramaeans (see on ch. 10:22). He is called “Aramaean” here merely because Terah’s family had settled in Aramaic territory, and was gradually absorbed by the Aramaeans. Moses refers to both Bethuel and Laban as Aramaeans.
Padan-aram. The location of “Padan-aram” is not clear. It occurs only in Genesis (chs. 28:2, 5-7; 31:18; etc.), and has been explained as designating a region that constituted part of ’Aram-naharayim (see on ch. 24:10). Again, it may refer to Haran, inasmuch as Padan and Haran have similar meanings in the Assyrian language.
21. Isaac intreated the Lord. Like his father, Isaac was to learn that children of the promise were not to be simply the fruit of nature, but manifestly the gift of grace as well. When Isaac and Rebekah had been married for 19 years (vs. 20, 26), and were still childless, Isaac made the matter a subject of prayer. He chose to rely upon the mercies of God rather than to trust his own clever devices, as had Abraham (ch. 16:3). His confidence in God was not exercised in vain, nor did he have long to wait before faith became fact.
22. The children struggled. Rebekah became apprehensive, both for her own and for her children’s safety. Perplexed, she went to the Lord for an explanation. Various ancient and modern commentators notwithstanding, this does not necessarily imply the use of an intermediary, much less the need of one. Melchizedek, Abraham, and Isaac have been suggested as the ones to whom she may have gone. Most likely, she simply went to the Lord in prayer. Why should it seem strange for her to talk to God personally? He is no respecter of persons.
23. Two nations. An angel revealed to Rebekah something of the future of the two sons soon to be born (PP 177). Already, it seemed, they were struggling for the supremacy. The angel’s prediction was fulfilled in the later history of Esau’s and Jacob’s descendants, the Edomites and the Israelites. These two brother nations were ever enemies, Israel usually proving to be the stronger of the two. David subjugated the Edomites (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Kings 11:16), and King Amaziah later defeated them (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chron. 25:11, 12). The Hasmonaean king John Hyrcanus I finally brought their independence to an end in the year 126 b.c., when he forced them to accept the rite of circumcision and the law of Moses, and to submit to a Jewish governor. God’s insight into the respective characters of Esau and Jacob and His foresight into their future made possible His selection of Jacob as inheritor of the birthright and progenitor of Christ even before his birth (Rom. 8:29; 9:10-14).
25. Red. Heb. ’admoni, probably the root from which the name Edom was derived (see also v. 30). The same Hebrew word is used to describe David’s appearance (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42). It is similar in meaning to the Latin Rufus the name assigned to two men of NT times (Mark 15:21; Rom. 16:13). Esau’s excessive growth of hair, known medically as hypertrichosis, already noticeable at birth, later became the most significant feature of his physical appearance.
They called his name Esau. Both parents agreed upon the appropriateness of this name. The context has led some scholars to suggest its derivation from an unknown root signifying “to be covered with hair.” Its meaning, however, cannot be determined from available information.
26. His name was called Jacob. The Hebrew word for “heel,” ‘aqeb, is related to the verb ‘aqab, “to take by the heel,” figuratively, “to deceive.” The personal name Jacob, meaning “he grasps the heel” or “he deceives,” was therefore most appropriate. It was not only reminiscent of the incident at his birth, but prophetic of his character and destiny. On the age of Isaac at the time of the birth of his two sons, see on vs. 19-21.
27. Esau was a cunning hunter. As the two boys grew up a great difference in character became evident. Esau displayed a rough, capricious disposition, and reveled in the wild, adventurous life of field and forest (see ch. 27:3).
Jacob was a plain man. The Hebrew word tam, here translated “plain,” suggests an amiable, pious, and cultured personality. The duties and responsibilities of settled family life, so monotonous and irritating to Esau, came naturally to Jacob, “a plain man, dwelling in tents.” Whereas Esau never outgrew the physical and emotional restlessness of adolescence, Jacob developed the stability of character and soundness of judgment that should come with maturity.
28. Isaac loved Esau. Isaac’s blind partiality for his first-born, irrespective of the son’s character qualifications for family leadership, brought division into the family. As a result, wrong, misery, and injustice marked relations between the brothers and their posterity for centuries. Isaac’s preference for Esau seems to have been based, in part at least, on his love for venison. The extent to which the patriarch let his love and his sense of justice and piety be controlled by his appetite is surprising and disappointing. His experience is, furthermore, a warning to us. To prefer one child above another inevitably creates jealousy, division, bitterness, and misery.
29. Sod pottage. The difference in character between the two brothers was soon apparent in a singular situation, one which proved to be a turning point in their lives. Jacob had cooked a meal of lentils (v. 34). Red lentils are to the present day a favorite food in Palestine, where they are prepared with onions, garlic, rice, and olive oil. Occasionally, meat is added also.
30. Feed me. The word translated “feed” occurs only in this passage, and means “to eat greedily” or “to devour.”
Therefore was his name called Edom. From ’adom, “red.” There is no discrepancy in ascribing his name both to his red complexion (v. 25) and to the color of the lentils. The name was thus doubly appropriate. The Arabs are still fond of giving surnames such as this to famous persons. The Edomites are mentioned more frequently in Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions than are the Israelites. In Egypt the name Edom appears as Idwm, and in cuneiform texts as Udûmu.
31. Sell me this day thy birthright. Jacob knew of the angel’s prophecy concerning himself and his brother, made prior to their birth (see v. 23; PP 178). Now he took advantage of what appeared to him to be a fair, though unusual, opportunity. Under the Mosaic legislation the privileges of the first-born were: (1) succession to the official authority of the father, (2) the inheritance of a double portion of the father’s property, (3) the privilege of becoming the family priest (see Ex. 22:29; Num. 8:14-17; Deut. 21:17). To the descendants of Abraham the birthright also implied: (1) succession to the promise of the earthly Canaan and other covenant blessings, (2) the honor of being a progenitor of the promised Seed.
Jacob’s proposal was unscrupulous and contemptible. It reveals, as well, a spirit of impatience, and a lack of confidence in the overruling providence of God, similar to that manifested by Abraham in his marriage to Hagar (Gen. 16:3). Jacob’s conditions of sale were exacting, selfish, and base. The theory that the end justifies the means does not have the approval of Heaven (see Matt. 4:3, 4; DA 121, 122). God could not approve the act, but He did overrule it to the eventual accomplishment of His purpose.
32. At the point to die. The KJV leaves the impression that Esau meant, “I shall die of hunger if I do not get food immediately. In that case my birthright would be of no profit to me. It is therefore better for me to get food and live on without a birthright than to die now while I am in possession of it.” Many commentators have followed this line of reasoning. Another explanation understands this expression to mean, “Earlier or later I must die anyway, and then it will not matter whether I possess the birthright or not.” The latter interpretation seems more plausible in the light of the words of v. 34, that he “despised his birthright.” Being indifferent about the blessings that were to be his, Esau regarded them lightly and was therefore unworthy of them (PP 181).
33. Swear to me. Jacob’s conduct in this transaction is difficult to defend. His attitude and words reveal premeditation (PP 179). It is a dangerous and sometimes fatal mistake to anticipate and run ahead of Providence, which in due time and without human conniving will accomplish the divine purpose.
34. Despised his birthright. To Esau the only thing of value was the momentary satisfaction of appetite; future spiritual blessings seemed remote and unreal. In this he showed himself to be a “profane [irreligious] person” (Heb. 12:16), insensible to spiritual things. He cared for nothing but the gratification of sensual desire. Like the dumb brute, he based his decisions only on sense considerations of the moment. The extent to which a person is willing to sacrifice present desires for future good is an accurate measure of emotional and spiritual maturity. On this basis, only the Christian can ever become fully mature, for he alone is ready and willing to forfeit all this life has to offer in order that he may be accounted worthy of the life to come (see 2 Cor. 4:17, 18; Phil. 3:7-15; Acts 20:24; Luke 20:34, 35; Heb. 11:10). The trifling way in which Esau sold his birthright for a dish of lentils demonstrated his unfitness to become heir to the gracious promises of God. While Jacob’s conduct cannot be condoned, that of Esau is deserving of the most severe condemnation. Jacob repented and was forgiven; Esau was beyond forgiveness, because his repentance consisted only of regret for the results of his rash act, not for the act itself (Heb. 12:16, 17; PP 181).
1. There was a famine. A famine similar to that which occurred in the time of Abraham (see ch. 12:10). The more fertile region of Gerar was not affected by drought, as was the semiarid Negeb. On the presence of Philistines in Canaan at this time, see on ch. 21:32. Whether Abimelech and Phichol (Gen. 26:26) are the same individuals as those mentioned in chs. 20:2 and 21:22, or simply titles meaning, respectively, “king” and “army commander,” is not known, more probably the latter (see on chs. 20:2; 21:22).
2. The Lord appeared unto him. This is the first recorded divine revelation accorded Isaac. Several promises made earlier to Abraham were now repeated to Isaac (see chs. 12:3; 15:5; 22:17, 18).
5. Abraham obeyed. The obedience of the father is here given as the reason for the blessings that would come upon the son. It is also an implied promise that similar action on Isaac’s part would bring similar results. James explains that Abraham’s faith, for which he was rightly praised by Paul (Rom. 4:1-5), was perfected by his obedience (James 2:21-23). Neither trust nor obedience is complete without the other.
My voice. Whenever God spoke, Abraham always obeyed without delay (Gen. 12:1-4; 22:1-3).
My commandments. “Commandments” refers to precepts given by God (1 Sam. 13:13; 1 Kings 13:21), by a father (Prov. 4:1, 4; 6:20), by a king (1 Kings 2:43; 2 Kings 18:36), or by a teacher (Prov. 2:1; 7:1, 2). Such a precept, to walk perfectly before God, had been enjoined upon Abraham at the age of 99 (Gen. 17:1).
My statutes. This refers to divine laws, ceremonial (Ex. 13:10; Num. 9:14; etc.) as well as moral (Deut. 4:5, 8, 14; 6:24; etc.).
My laws. Ethical instructions as well as ceremonial and spiritual precepts (Job 22:22; Isa. 8:16, 20.)
This verse includes most of the Hebrew words that refer to divine laws or commandments. Abraham diligently observed them all, whether they came directly from God or whether they had been handed down from past generations. He purposed in his heart to obey God implicitly; where he failed, he approached God with the sacrifice of contrition upon the altar of his heart (see Heb. 7:25; 8:1-4). He left his native land, he offered his son, he carried out the rite of circumcision, he paid tithe. The same must certainly have been true with regard to phases of God’s law not specifically mentioned in connection with his life story. God’s own testimony, here given, makes it certain, for instance, that Abraham was faithful in Sabbath observance, as he was in other matters, such as tithe paying.
7. She is my sister. As Abraham had declared his wife to be his sister (chs. 12:11, 12; 20:2, 11), so also did Isaac; but the manner in which God protected Rebekah was very different from that in which Sarah was preserved. No one so much as touched her. This experience and one other (ch. 25:28) are the only recorded instances in the life of Isaac of deviation from strict rectitude. Ashamed of his own conduct, Abraham may not have warned Isaac by a narration of his own failures in this respect. More likely, however, Abraham had told Isaac but, as so often happens, Isaac had to learn the lesson for himself through bitter experience. How often the sins of parents are perpetuated in their children! But hereditary weaknesses never free the children from personal accountability for their own mistakes. (see Eze. 18:20).
12. An hundredfold. Although the patriarchs lived, generally speaking, a seminomadic life, their habits differed considerably from those of present-day Bedouins. The latter neither till the land nor own great herds and flocks as the patriarchs did. Although the Gerar valley is exceptionally fertile, a hundredfold increase in the yield of grain is about the maximum for Palestine, where it is normally thirtyfold to fiftyfold (see Matt. 13:23). The special blessing of God rested upon Isaac.
15. All the wells. Isaac’s increased wealth and influence aroused the envy of the Philistines, and they sought to do him injury. The wells rendered useless by the Philistines, the king of Gerar had solemnly guaranteed to Abraham in perpetuity (see ch. 21:25-32). The accessibility of wells is most important in the southern desert country of Palestine, and without them a herdsman must seek pasture elsewhere.
17. Isaac departed thence. As was becoming a saint, Isaac did not strive, but moved his encampment to the east of the city, though still in the same valley from which Gerar took its name.
22. He removed from thence. A peace-loving man, Isaac did not wish to get into trouble over the wells his men dug, and moved on each time his rights were contested. The third new well seems to have been sufficiently far from the Philistines that they left him in peace there, for which reason he named it Rehoboth, “wide spaces.” This spring has been identified with the present er-Ruchebeh, 20 mi. southwest of Beersheba in the Wadi Ruchebeh, which perpetuates today the name it received from Isaac.
23. He went up from thence. For some unexplained reason Isaac moved on northward after a time and settled at Beersheba, where Abraham once lived (chs. 21:33; 22:19). Here Jehovah appeared to Isaac by night and renewed the covenant promise.
26. Abimelech went to him. Upon the occasion of the former treaty Isaac was about three years of age (ch. 21:8, 22; see also on ch. 21:8). The second treaty came approximately 97 years later (chs. 25:26; 26:34). It is probable, therefore, that the Abimelech of ch. 26:26 is not the individual mentioned in ch. 21:22. When a man’s ways are pleasing to God, even his enemies will be at peace with him (Prov. 16:7). The new king of Gerar now proposed a treaty that was in reality a renewal of the original treaty between Abraham and an earlier king of Gerar. In spite of the injustice Isaac had suffered at their hands, he, as a peace-loving man, was happy to conclude a new pact of friendship with Abimelech. One can only wonder how Isaac felt as Abimelech brazenly boasted of his own erstwhile fairness and honesty. The fact that there had been no violence when Abimelech’s servants ruined several wells and robbed Isaac of at least two others was due solely to Isaac’s peaceful retreat. Though Isaac could not forget these bitter experiences, he did not mention them. His was a great heart, a magnanimous spirit. Though not mentioned here, animals were presumably slaughtered and the usual ceremonies observed (see on ch. 21:27).
33. He called it Shebah. Isaac’s servants informed him of their success in opening a new well that very day, and to it he gave the name of Shebah, meaning “oath,” in commemoration of the treaty with Abimelech. The statement, “therefore the name of the city is called Beer-sheba,” does not discredit the fact that Abraham had already given that very name to the place (ch. 21:31). There was now an added reason for perpetuating the name assigned the spot a century earlier. As the treaty between Abimelech and Isaac was but a renewal of that earlier treaty, so the name Shebah given by Isaac to the new well was a reaffirmation of the earlier name, Beersheba.
34. Esau was forty years old. To Isaac’s difficulties with the Philistines a domestic cross was now added, one which caused him deep and lasting sorrow. Esau, who had already demonstrated his indifference toward religious principles, saw no reason for counseling with his parents in regard to the choice of a wife or for going to the trouble of arranging for one from among his relatives in Mesopotamia. When he was 40 years of age, and his father 100 (ch. 25:26), he married two Hittite women, simultaneously or nearly so. In so doing he openly defied the principles of parental guidance, of nonintermarriage with the heathen, and of monogamy.
The names of Esau’s wives, as well as those of their fathers, are Semitic. Judith means “the praised one,” Beeri, “my well,” Bashemath, “fragrance,” and Elon, “the strong one.” These names suggest that the two Hittite families involved must have lived in Canaan for some time and had adopted the language of the Canaanites. On the presence of Hittites in southern Palestine at this early period, see on ch. 20:1.
35. Which were a grief of mind. These two women, as the Hebrew clearly indicates, became literally, “a bitterness of spirit” to Esau’s parents. Their perverse and evil ways, their idolatrous religion, and their unspiritual and frivolous disposition brought heartache to Isaac and Rebekah. This sad world knows no greater grief than that which children can bring.
1. When Isaac was old. From the following considerations, Isaac must have been about 137 years of age when the incident narrated in this chapter took place. Esau was already married (v. 46). This occurred when Isaac was 100 years old (see chs. 26:34; 25:26). But, as will be seen, the events recorded here must have occurred at a much later time even than that. Jacob was 130 years old when he went down to Egypt (ch. 47:9), and his son Joseph 39. This is clear from the fact that the latter was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh (ch. 41:46), and that since that time 7 abundant and 2 lean years had passed (chs. 41:54; 45:6). These 9 years must be added to the 30, making Joseph 39 years of age. Jacob was consequently 91 years old when Joseph was born. This had taken place at the end of 14 years of Jacob’s service in Laban’s house (chs. 29:18, 27; 30:25); therefore Jacob was 77 years old when he fled to Haran. Since Jacob’s flight probably followed soon after the events of this chapter, and since his father Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (ch. 25:26), Isaac’s age in ch. 27 must have been about 137 years. Isaac lived for another 43 years, to the ripe age of 180 (ch. 35:28).
4. That my soul may bless thee. Since his half brother Ishmael, 14 years his senior (chs. 16:16; 21:5), had died at the age of 137 years (ch. 25:17), his own increasing infirmities of age may have suggested the thought of approaching death. Without regard to God’s instructions with reference to the two children before their birth, and without taking notice of Esau’s barter of his birthright and his Canaanite marriages, Isaac apparently persisted in his preference for Esau. This preference being strengthened by his taste for game (ch. 25:28), it was natural that he should call for “venison” to celebrate the occasion.
5. Rebekah heard. What motives impelled her to this course of action? It seemed to her that God’s choice of Jacob was about to be thwarted. Isaac’s intention was clear, and it was contrary to God’s revealed will. Apparently she concluded that neither reason nor argument would change his mind. Feeling that God desperately needed her help, Rebekah took matters into her own hands. She resorted to one wrong in the hope of righting another. To her the crisis seemed real and urgent. Isaac, supposing he was on his deathbed, had determined to transfer the birthright to Esau. By dispatching Esau to the field for game, he had initiated the process of transfer, which, when complete, would be irrevocable. What should she do? It was in her power to prevent what appeared to be an irrevocable wrong. This was her last chance to act, and should she let it slip, all hope would be gone. To refrain from action when it was in her power to remedy the situation, and simply trust God to work things out in His own good way and time, seemed impossible. By such a process of rationalization she sought to convince herself that any means to secure the desired end was justified. Was she not helping God to bring about His own clearly expressed purpose? And if in so doing she should commit sin, would God not be obliged to forgive her? When men set their hearts upon a course of action not in accord with the strictest standard of right, their foolish hearts grow dark. White looks black, and wrong looks right. And whenever what God has clearly said to be all wrong appears to be all right, the hypnotic power of the tempter is complete (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 1:21, 22; Isa. 5:20; Micah 3:2).
12. A curse upon me. Rebekah silenced Jacob’s fear of the curse his father might pronounce on him should his deception be discovered; she would accept the curse herself. She was as set in her way as Isaac was in his. Bent upon securing that which seemed of supreme value, and which was about to elude her grasp, she would count the cost later—not now. For the present, only one thing mattered. She was so certain of the success of her stratagem as to have no fear whatever of the possibility of a curse.
14. He went. Jacob acceded to her plan and fetched the goats. These were not the common European variety, whose skins would be quite unsuitable for any such deception. They were the camel goats of the Orient, whose black, silklike hair was sometimes used as a substitute for human hair.
Jacob’s objection makes it clear that he was not so much concerned with the wrong of the act as with the risk of discovery. Degenerate human nature is less concerned with sin than with its results. Only the Spirit of Christ can impart to man a contrite, repentant heart, bold to do right and willing to trust God for the results of such a course of action (see 2 Cor. 7:10; Micah 6:8). For years Jacob had schemed to obtain the coveted blessing, and now that it was about to slip from his grasp, but little persuasion on Rebekah’s part was necessary to transform his hesitancy into active cooperation. His own unsanctified desires made him an easy victim to the wiles of the tempter.
19. I am Esau. The task of convincing his father was by no means easy or certain of success. Having announced his arrival, Jacob was confronted with several embarrassing questions. One deception after another was necessary to the accomplishment of his objective. He declared himself to be Esau and the kid’s meat to be venison, and attributed his speedy return to the presumed blessing of God.
24. Art thou my very son Esau? Isaac’s sense of touch must have been seriously affected by his infirmity or by his age. On the other hand, his sense of hearing was more acute, and made him suspicious of Jacob’s voice. But the scent of field and forest upon Esau’s garments (v. 15) seemed to confirm the touch of his son’s hairy hands. Finally, the fragrant aroma of “savoury meat” (v. 9) whetted his appetite, and he dismissed his fears. He could not see; but touch, taste, and smell prevailed over hearing. The original mistake that had led to this deception was Isaac’s own. Furthermore, he had deliberately gone forward with his plan to invest Esau with the birthright in the face of a divine command to the contrary, and God therefore permitted him to be deceived (see 1 Sam. 28:6; 1 Kings 14:1-6; Acts 5:1-11).
27. And blessed him. The blessing itself, as with all such pronouncements (see Gen. 49; Deut. 33), is in Hebrew poetic style. This consists of parallel clauses whose diction and grammar are peculiar to poetry. The scent of field and forest upon the clothing Jacob wore suggested to the patriarch’s mind a picture of his son’s future prosperity. Isaac seemed to see him in possession of the Promised Land and in the full enjoyment of its accompanying blessings. Special mention is made of the “dew of heaven” because in Eastern countries, where there is so little rain, the dew is indispensable to the growth of the fruits of the earth. It is often mentioned as a source of blessing (Deut. 33:13, 28; Hosea 14:5; Zech. 8:12).
29. Let people serve thee. Jacob was to be pre-eminent, not only over his brethren, in the wider sense of all his relatives, but over foreign peoples as well. This blessing envisions the concept of universal dominion, which was indeed God’s original plan for Israel (see Deut. 4:6; 28:10; 2 Chron. 9:22, 23; Ps. 126:3; Zech. 2:11; 8:22, 23; 14:16; COL 289, 290).
32. Who art thou? Jacob had scarcely received the blessing and left his father when Esau returned. The shock must have been crushing to Isaac. But, he apparently saw in the incident the intervention of Providence and concluded that any further attempt on his part to act contrary to God’s will would be futile. He knew he could not; therefore he would neither withdraw the blessing from Jacob nor seek to inflict a curse upon him. Isaac must have realized his own responsibility for the sad situation; why should he blame Jacob? As Esau had acted independently of his parents in the selection of a wife, so Isaac had acted independently of God in attempting to select his heir. Like Balaam, Isaac found himself powerless to turn away the blessing of God from one destined to receive it (see Num. 22:35; 23:8, 11, 12).
36. Is not he rightly named Jacob? As to the meaning of Jacob’s name see on ch. 25:26. Esau complained bitterly that Jacob had now deceived him twice. True, he, Esau, had sold his birthright to Jacob; but now, too late, he recognized his folly. Jacob’s taking advantage of him he now saw to be what it truly was—robbery.
38. But one blessing, my father? To be sure, God has unlimited blessings that He is ready to bestow with a lavish hand. Had Esau realized that his defective character disqualified him from receiving the blessing, and that it could be his only through a reversal of attitude, the blessings of God to Abraham and Isaac might have been his also (see Jer. 18:7-12). But it was not with this in mind that Esau spoke. He coveted the blessing without any intention of accepting the obligations that went with it. Like the elder son in the parable of the prodigal, he was jealously unwilling that favor should be shown his younger brother (Luke 15:29).
Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. In response to Esau’s further entreaty, “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” Isaac repeated in substance the blessing pronounced upon Jacob, and told Esau that he could do nothing further for him. When even his father, his best friend, seemed to turn against him, Esau awoke, finally, to the awful realization of his utter rejection by God. His tears expressed sorrow for his loss, but not for the conduct which had made that loss inevitable. His tears were ineffectual because he was no longer capable of true repentance (see Heb. 12:17). Like an impassable chasm, his imperfect character stood between him and the realization of that which now seemed to him of incomparable value (see Jer. 8:20; Luke 16:26; COL 271).
39. His father answered. Moved by the pathetic lament of his beloved son Esau, Isaac complied with his impassioned appeal. Once more Isaac spoke, perhaps by inspiration, this time of the future lot of Esau. This pronouncement, however, is not called a “blessing.” Actually it was a modified curse.
Thy dwelling. Literally, “Thy dwelling shall be [from, min] the fatness of the earth, and of [from] the dew of heaven.” According to the KJV, Esau’s “blessing” appears to be, substantially, a repetition of the temporal blessing given to Jacob. There are, to be sure, certain important variations, such as the omission of “plenty of corn and wine,” and of the name of God.
The KJV translation is grammatically possible. However, the preposition “of,” min, also means “way from.” Isaac’s meaning would then be, “Thy dwelling shall be away from the fatness of the earth, and away from the dew of heaven,” meaning that in contrast to the land of Canaan, the home of the Edomites would be an infertile region. Such a rendering is not only in accord with the Hebrew construction but is decidedly more appropriate to the context and to the facts of history: (1) It is an apt description of the dreariness and desertlike character of Idumaea, the home of Esau’s descendants. (2) It agrees with Isaac’s statement that every blessing had already been bestowed upon Jacob and avoids having him reverse himself (vs. 33, 37). (3) It explains the play upon the words “fatness” and “dew,” here descriptive of a state of affairs precisely the opposite to that declared to be the lot of Jacob (v. 28). This interpretation, it is true, treats the preposition min of v. 39 differently from that of v. 28. The different phraseology of the two verses, however, suggests that in v. 39 Isaac is making a clever play on words. The fact that Isaac here does not mention the name of God may indicate that this pronouncement was made on his own authority and not by inspiration—as was that addressed to Jacob.
40. By thy sword. The mode of life and occupation of the Edomites were well adapted to their country. This prediction found its fulfillment in the fierce and warlike disposition of the Edomites, who gained their sustenance by hunting and controlling forcefully the trade routes.
Serve thy brother. The promise to Esau envisioned a perpetual, and not altogether unsuccessful, struggle for freedom from Jacob. This was a repetition of the divine prediction made prior to their birth (ch. 25:23). The history of Edom is largely a reiteration of servitude to Israel, revolt from Israel, and reconquest by Israel. After a long period of independence to start with, the Edomites were defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and later subjugated by David (2 Sam. 8:14). In spite of an attempted revolt under Solomon (1 Kings 11:14-22), they remained subject to the kingdom of Judah until the time of Joram, when they rebelled (2 Kings 8:20-22). They were subdued again by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7-10; 2 Chron. 25:11-14), and remained in subjection under Uzziah and Jotham (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chron. 26:2). (The control of Elath, at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, was tantamount to the control of all Edom.) It was not till the reign of Ahaz that the Edomites permanently shook off the yoke of the kings of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chron. 28:16, 17). At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus, about 126 b.c., compelled to accept circumcision, and merged into the Jewish state (Josephus Antiquities xiii. 9. 1; xv. 7. 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, an Idumaean dynasty ruled Judea, with the blessing of Rome.
The predictions of Isaac concerning his two sons were thus accurately fulfilled (Heb. 11:20). The blessing upon each son constituted a prophecy. Though Isaac was deceived when he spoke concerning Jacob, what he said was nevertheless inspired, and Jacob remained blessed (Gen. 27:33). That this was so does not indicate divine approval upon the act of deception, for God is not dependent upon artifice to accomplish His will. God did not ordain the act of deception, He overruled it. The blessing came to Jacob, not because of deception, but in spite of it.
Parents and sons were all in the wrong, and each in his own way suffered as a result. The perpetrators of deception were forthwith and forever separated. Rebekah was obliged to send her beloved son forth from his father’s house to a foreign land, never to see him again. Jacob suffered for his sin against brother and father by 20 years of exile, during which he was himself repeatedly deceived and disappointed. Furthermore, he went forth from home utterly destitute. Isaac, by the success of Jacob’s stratagem, was chastened for persisting in his preference for Esau in spite of the revealed will of Jehovah. He was to be separated from the son he had passed by, and to have ever before him the ungodly example of the son he had cherished so blindly. For his contempt of God and religious things, Esau forfeited forever the privileges of family leadership due the first-born. And through all the counterplay of human plans and passions the purpose of God was accomplished.
41. The days of mourning. Esau’s despair soon changed into mortal hatred for his brother, but out of respect for his father he decided to spare him the sorrow and shame of the intended act of fratricide. Thinking that his father’s illness would end in early death, he postponed his planned act of murder. He could not know, of course, that his father would recover and live 43 years longer.
43. Flee thou to Laban. Perhaps Esau was generally popular among the retainers of Isaac. There were others who shared a knowledge of his plot. When Rebekah was informed by one of these of Esau’s intention, she advised Jacob to go into voluntary exile for “some days,” thinking that the vacillating disposition of Esau would bring a change of heart. Furthermore, by flight Jacob would be tacitly admitting his mistake and would leave Esau, apparently, in possession of his father’s property at the time of Isaac’s supposed imminent decease.
45. Why should I be deprived? If Esau should kill Jacob, then the latter’s nearest relative was obliged by custom to kill Esau. Perhaps Esau reasoned that his own personal popularity in camp would protect him from such an eventuality, particularly after the death of his father.
46. I am weary. In order to obtain Isaac’s consent to her plan without wounding his heart by telling him of Esau’s murderous intentions, she based her proposal upon an entirely different and legitimate reason. Isaac readily consented, for he, like Rebekah, was grieved by Esau’s wives (ch. 26:35).
1. Isaac called Jacob. Assenting to Rebekah’s proposal, Isaac took the initiative in sending Jacob to Padan-aram (see on ch. 25:20). Whether or not he knew of Esau’s plot, Isaac doubtless realized that it would be wise for Jacob and Esau to be separated until tension at home should lessen.
4. The blessing of Abraham. The official family line was to be perpetuated through Jacob. Consequently, the blessings repeatedly promised to Abraham were now committed to Jacob (see chs. 17:2-8; 22:16-18). He left home burdened with guilt, but also with his father’s blessing.
5. The Syrian. See on ch. 25:20. Moses deliberately places Jacob’s name before that of Esau, inasmuch as Jacob is now in possession not only of the birthright but also of Abraham’s blessing.
9. Then went Esau unto Ishmael. In the blessing of Jacob by Isaac and Jacob’s commission to take a wife from among their relatives in Mesopotamia, Esau perceived the deep-rooted displeasure his parents felt toward his Hittite wives. No doubt with the intention of pleasing his parents, he went to fetch a wife from the family of his grandfather Abraham, as Jacob was instructed to do from the family of his maternal uncle, Laban. Mahalath, or Bashemath (ch. 36:3), whom he took to wife, was related to Isaac as Jacob’s wife Rachel was to his mother Rebekah. Esau married his father’s niece; Jacob, his mother’s. Esau’s going “unto Ishmael” must mean going “to the family of Ishmael,” for Ishmael died about 14 years prior to this time (see on chs. 25:19; 27:1).
10. Jacob went out from Beer-sheba. Jacob set out in obedience to his mother’s wish and his father’s command (see Prov. 1:8). Although 77 years of age (see on Gen. 27:1), he still respected his parents and submitted to their authority. His filial example may well be emulated by every worthy son, wherever such conduct does not conflict with allegiance to God (Prov. 6:20; Mal. 1:6; Eph. 6:1-3).
Toward Haran. The famous city on the Balikh River in northern Mesopotamia was Jacob’s destination. This was the region where Terah had settled after his migration from Ur (Gen. 11:31). Upon Eliezer’s visit nearly a century earlier (PP 188), Bethuel’s family, including Laban, were living at the “city of Nahor,” which was not far from Haran (see on ch. 24:10). This indicates a move from Nahor’s city to Haran after Rebekah left her parental home. Rebekah’s advice to Jacob to go directly to Haran rather than to Nahor’s city (ch. 27:43) shows that it was known in Beersheba that Laban’s family had made this move.
11. A certain place. At the close of the second day Jacob reached the vicinity of the city of Luz (v. 19), some 50 mi. to the north of Beersheba. He chose not to spend the night within the city itself for fear of the Canaanites. Hatred for them, suggested by Josephus as the reason for Jacob’s not entering the city, is probably of less importance (Antiquities i. 19. 1).
His pillows. Literally, “the region of his head” or “the place where the head is.” Jacob therefore took a stone and put it “under his head” or “as a headrest.” A pillow in our sense of the word seems to have been unknown to the ancients. In many Oriental lands people used headrests made of wood, clay, stone, or metal, and still do. Many ancient examples of these have been preserved in Egypt. Since they were all made of hard material, it was unnecessary for a traveler to carry a pillow with him. A smooth stone would suffice. It was therefore no hardship for Jacob to sleep with his head on a stone. The stone is mentioned here in anticipation of the use made of it later on in the narrative (v. 22).
12. He dreamed. As Jacob lay there, weary, lonely, and sad, his heart turned in prayer to God (PP 183). Such was the mental background of his dream. Only after two long days, during which he had opportunity to reflect upon his course of action and to realize his own helplessness, did God appear to him. In the providence of God, delay is often the means used to purify the soul and lead a man to cast himself without reserve upon God’s mercy and grace (see DA 200, 380-382). The ladder was a visible symbol of the real and uninterrupted fellowship between God in heaven and His people upon earth. The angels ascend to present men’s needs before God, and descend with promises of divine assistance and protection. The ladder appeared to rest upon the earth, where Jacob lay, alone, destitute, and forsaken by men. Above, in heaven, stood Jehovah. Proclaiming Himself to Jacob as the God of his fathers, He not only confirmed to him all the promises made to his fathers—the possession of Canaan, a numerous offspring, and blessing to all men (see chs. 12:2, 3; 13:14-17; 15:5, 7, 16; 17:2-6, 16; 17:8; 18:18; 22:17, 18; 26:3, 4, 24)—but vouchsafed to him protection on his journey and a safe return home. Since the fulfillment of this promise to Jacob was still afar off, God added the firm assurance, “I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.”
16. The Lord is in this place. Jacob’s statement is not evidence, as some commentators suggest, that Jacob conceived of God as appearing only at certain consecrated places, and that he had chanced upon one of these. It is, rather, an expression of his surprise and joy upon finding that whereas he had imagined himself alone, he was in reality in the very company of God. Jacob’s statement was, in a certain sense, a self-accusation. He admitted that lack of faith had occasioned his thoughts of discouragement. It was when he felt most forsaken that he found God nearer and more real to him than ever before.
17. How dreadful is this place! Those accorded the privilege of a revelation of God find in their hearts a sense of profound awe. To Isaiah came a conviction of guilt, so intense that he feared for his life (Isa. 6:5). A similar experience now brought to Jacob a keen realization of his unworthy and sinful state. But despite his alarm, he knew the place to be “the house of God,” Beth-’Elohim, a house of peace and safety.
18. Took the stone. The stone that had been his pillow became a monument to commemorate the revelation he had received from God. He poured oil upon it to consecrate it as a memorial to the mercy there revealed to him (see Ex. 30:26-30). This “pillar” was in no sense made an object of worship. Pillar worship did exist among the Canaanites, but was strictly forbidden by God (see Lev. 26:1; Deut. 16:22). Later, however, the Israelites violated this divine prohibition, and set up pillars (“images”) as cult objects (see 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:14; 2 Chron. 14:3; 31:1; Hosea 10:1, 2; Micah 5:13). This does not mean, however, that every pillar set up had such a significance, as the following examples show. Jacob erected another pillar to commemorate his treaty with Laban (Gen. 31:45), and still another served to mark the grave of Rachel (ch. 35:20). Absalom later erected one to perpetuate his memory (2 Sam. 18:18).
19. Beth-el. By translation, “House of God.” This name was later applied to the nearby city, then known as Luz. That the name Bethel was at first applied only to the place where Jacob’s memorial stood and not to Luz is apparent from Joshua 16:2, where the two places are clearly differentiated. In other passages, however, Bethel is used as the modern name of the ancient city of Luz (see Gen. 35:6; Joshua 18:13; Judges 1:23). This change of name was not made until the Israelites occupied the city. It retains this name today in its Arabic form, Beitîn.
20. Jacob vowed a vow. This is the first recorded vow. By taking a vow a man binds himself to do certain things in a specified way. Since the fulfillment of Jacob’s vow depended upon God’s power, and because it was made to God, it took the form of a prayer. It was not made in a mercenary spirit, but in gratitude, humility, and confidence.
If God. This expression in no way implies doubt in Jacob’s mind as to whether God would fulfill His promises, or that Jacob was proposing terms to God. He took the Lord at His word. Since He had graciously promised to be with him and to bless him, he on his part would be faithful to God (see PP 187, 188). In profound appreciation, Jacob’s thoughts turned to tangible ways in which his devotion might be expressed.
Bread to eat. Jacob, who had not hesitated to use the most despicable means in an endeavor to secure for himself the larger share of the inheritance, now humbly asked nothing more than protection, food, clothing, and a peaceful return to his father’s house. He would be happy for the bare necessities of life. Gone was his desire for wealth, luxury, honor, and power. What a lesson in humility, and how thoroughly Jacob had learned it!
21. Then shall. He had thought of God as the God of his fathers. To be sure, he had long ago taken Jehovah to be his God. But whereas in the past he had depended to a great extent on the security of his father’s home, circumstances had now made necessary a much more personal and real reliance upon God for all that he had casually taken for granted thus far through life. It was not a matter of coming to God for the first time, but of a more intimate, mature, and understanding fellowship with Him.
From this time forward Jacob gave evidence of loyalty of loyalty to God. He yielded himself to divine control and rendered God the homage of a grateful and loving heart. What progress he made during the 20 years between Bethel and Peniel! Grace reigned within, but there was conflict as well. His tendencies to evil remained active, and occasionally he yielded all too readily to them. But right principles steadily gained control of his life, and he returned to Canaan with mature trust in God. Under the patient discipline administered by God, he gained steadily in faith until, from the great crisis of his life at Mahanaim and Peniel, he emerged “a prince with God.”
22. This stone. Jacob declared his intention to erect upon this spot an altar for the celebration of divine worship. This resolution he carried out several years after returning safely to the land of his birth (see ch. 35:1, 15).
The tenth. Abraham and Jacob both understood and practiced the payment of tithe (see ch. 14:20). Jacob’s words imply that this had not been his habit in the past. Perhaps he had little to call his own. Perhaps his grasping spirit had led him to be careless in tithing what was his. However that may be, he vowed henceforth faithfully to pay a tenth, not to earn the favor of Heaven, but in humble and grateful recognition of the pardon and favor of God. He made his promise emphatic, saying, “I will surely give,” literally, “giving I will give.” In other words, he would keep on giving it. Judging by his future life of faithfulness and devotion to God, there is no reason to doubt that his vow was faithfully kept. That God blessed Jacob so abundantly in later years is evidence of faithfulness in this respect (see Mal. 3:8-11). He who for 77 years seems not to have been a faithful tithepayer left Canaan a poor fugitive, with nothing but a staff in his hand, but returned 20 years later with much cattle, flocks, servants, and a great family.
Every Christian may learn from Jacob’s experience a vital lesson. In time of crisis and calamity he should consider whether heavenly blessings have perhaps been withheld because of unfaithfulness in tithe paying (see Haggai 1:6-11). Jacob’s experience testifies that it is never too late to make a new start in this direction, not, to be sure, as a means of earning God’s favor, but as a token of love and devotion to Him. The blessings of Heaven may then descend upon the sincere believer as they did in Jacob’s case. The grand objective of all God’s dealings with man is the development of a character that will reflect that of his Creator.
1. Jacob went on his journey. Literally, “Jacob lifted up his feet and went.” This implies cheerfulness and reflects the state of mind in which the experience of the preceding night had left him. Thus strengthened in spirit Jacob proceeded on his journey to “the land of the people of the east,” which in this case refers to Upper Mesopotamia east of the Euphrates River. The term also included the upper Arabian Desert. In the Bible the peoples “of the east” are those dwelling in Mesopotamia or in the desert in its immediate vicinity. The Hebrews seem to have been content with approximate expressions of direction. “East” could mean any direction between northeast and southeast.
2. A well. After a journey of some 450 mi., which would require about 3 weeks, Jacob reached the vicinity of Haran (v. 4). The remark that the stone upon the well’s mouth was large does not mean that the united strength of all the shepherds was required to roll it away, for Jacob did so alone (v. 10). It suggests, rather, an agreement among the shepherds to water their flocks together. The scene at the well is so thoroughly in harmony with the customs of the East, both ancient and modern, that the similarity of this narrative to the one described in ch. 24:11 is by no means strange. Moreover, this well was constructed differently from the one where Eliezer met Rebekah. There the water was drawn at once from an open well and poured into troughs placed ready for the cattle, as at most wells in the East today, whereas here the well was closed with a stone and no mention is made of the need of pitchers and troughs.
4. Whence be ye? Jacob’s question implies that the well was not situated in the immediate neighborhood of Haran. Learning that they were from Haran, he inquired about “Laban the son [descendant] of Nahor.” Laban was actually Nahor’s grandson (ch. 24:15, 29). The shepherds, whose answers had thus far been brief, since Jacob was a stranger, spoke of the imminent arrival of Rachel. The name Rachel means “sheep” or “ewe.”
9. Rachel came. Apparently it was not the custom for young women to be kept at home until the time of their marriage approached. Nor was it beneath the dignity of girls from wealthy families to carry water from the well, as Rebekah did, or to tend sheep, as Rachel did in this instance. Honest labor, far from being a discredit, is an honor to both high and low. Every son and daughter should learn that work is not humiliating, but that it is a privilege to contribute to the needs of the family.
11. Jacob kissed Rachel. The fact that Rachel did not resent Jacob’s conduct as an undue liberty suggests that he had already made his identity known to her. The first words of v. 12 could as well be rendered “Jacob had told Rachel,” a translation the Hebrew construction permits.
12. Her father’s brother. As Lot is called Abraham’s brother, though in reality his nephew (chs. 13:8; 14:14, 16), so Jacob refers to himself as Laban’s brother. Apparently in cases where accuracy was not important the word “brother” was employed to indicate a close relative.
13. He told Laban. Laban now responded to the coming of a near relative much as he had upon the arrival of Eliezer 97 years previously (ch. 24:30, 31). The same cordiality and hospitality are again in evidence. “All these things” probably refers to what his mother had instructed him to say in order to attest his relationship, and in regard to the cause and objectives of his exile from home. Had he not told the truth, how could he have explained his apparent poverty? Why should he, the son of wealthy parents, reach Haran on foot and without either gifts or servants? How different had been the arrival of Abraham’s servant in the long ago!
15. What shall thy wages be? Having been a guest in his uncle’s home for one month (v. 14), during which he seems to have rendered himself useful to the household, Laban recognized in Jacob a valuable assistant. Of an obviously covetous disposition, Laban purposed to exploit Jacob’s skill and diligence to his own advantage. But lest Jacob discern his motives, Laban carefully concealed his selfishness under the semblance of justice and kindness. To preclude all possible claims on the part of his nephew, he proposed to pay him as he would an ordinary servant.
17. Leah was tender eyed. The Hebrew word rak, here translated “tender” by the KJV, has usually been understood to mean “weak” or “dull.” Ever since the LXX employed this translation most commentators and translators have followed it. The word rak also means “delicate,” “gentle,” “soft,” and “flattering,” and may perhaps mean that her eyes looked the precise opposite of what most commentators have thought. However, the fact that Jacob was not attracted to Leah would indicate more of a contrast between the two sisters than this latter suggestion implies. Perhaps Leah’s eyes, and her personality as well, lacked the brilliance and lustrous warmth the Oriental admires. The RSV renders the word as “weak.”
18. Seven years for Rachel. Jacob, deeply in love with Rachel, was immediately ready to come to terms with his uncle. Jacob’s proposal was based partly on the fact that he was not in a position to pay the usual dowry and partly on his knowledge that the situation at home would make necessary a rather prolonged stay with Laban. Laban’s assent is to be explained solely on the ground of greed, which became more apparent as time went on.
20. The love he had to her. Jacob gave evidence of his devoted affection for Rachel, not alone by his willingness to serve seven years for her, but even more by the spirit in which he worked for his avaricious uncle. Many as were the days that must pass before Rachel should become his bride, they were rendered happy by his love for her. The words used by Moses to express the depth of Jacob’s love breathe pure affection and tender devotion.
21. Give me my wife. It is an interesting comment on Laban that Jacob found it necessary to remind him of the expiration of the seven years. A great marriage feast, probably lasting an entire week (v. 27), was prepared, according to the usual custom. Laban’s deception of Jacob was possible because of the custom of veiling the bride and bringing her to the bridegroom “in the evening.” Although girls usually had little choice in the selection of their husbands, Leah’s consent was necessary to the success of this base proposal. She must herself have loved Jacob, to approve and cooperate in the plan to wrong both her sister and her future husband by marrying one who neither sought nor loved her.
24. Zilpah. Laban fulfilled an Oriental custom (see ch. 24:59) when he gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her personal attendant. The meaning of her name may be “short nose.”
25. What is this? Next morning Jacob, the master deceiver, awoke to find himself the victim of deceit. Inexorable justice had repaid him double for his double-dealing. In self-defense Laban pleaded an imaginary requirement of local social custom. Had this actually been the custom in Haran, as it was in some other ancient countries, he should have told Jacob of it when the latter proposed working for Rachel. Jacob’s vow to God at Bethel, however, and his longing for Rachel led him to stay by Laban rather than repudiate the marriage as he might have done.
27. Fulfil her week. Wedding feasts customarily lasted one week (see Judges 14:12), and Jacob was to have Rachel also at the close of Leah’s marital festivities (Gen. 29:28-30). Laban was no doubt anxious to preserve his good name by keeping his fraud from the public eye, in view of the fact that all the men of the city were his guests at the celebration (see v. 22). His behavior reveals nothing but one mean motive after another. Though he attached little value to his daughter’s affections and happiness, he had a keen appreciation of Jacob’s qualities as a shepherd. Out of necessity Jacob agreed to the proposal. Laban thus received 14 years of service instead of 7, and at the same time relieved himself of liability to support Leah, who might otherwise have been difficult to marry off.
28. He gave him Rachel. It is plain that Jacob did not serve another seven years before Rachel became his wife. This occurred at the close of Leah’s festal week. Jacob’s act of bigamy must not be judged by a later provision in the Mosaic law that prohibited marriage with two sisters concurrently (Lev. 18:18). At the same time Jacob’s double marriage cannot be justified on the ground that the blessing of God eventually made it the means of multiplying Jacob’s seed and so fulfilling His promise. God simply overruled the errors of men; even these could not thwart His purpose (see Ps. 76:10). The bigamy that had been occasioned by Laban’s deception and Jacob’s affection brought friction and regret to the homes of both men. In this school of affliction Jacob learned that “the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15). The jealousy and misery attending this marriage are a commentary on Moses’ specific injunction against a man’s marrying two sisters concurrently (Lev. 18:18).
Bilhah. As with Leah, a maid was also given Rachel. The meaning of her name may have been “terror,” but this is uncertain.
30. He loved. Leah, a party to Laban’s cruel fraud, was unsuccessful in winning her husband’s affections. The result was a home where envy, jealousy, and contention prevailed. For years Jacob had worked and waited patiently for the day when he would have a happy home with his beloved Rachel, only to find himself burdened with two quarrelsome wives (see ch. 30:1, 2, 8, 15). How different had been the early years of the married life of his father Isaac, upon whose home no shadow of polygamy, with its baleful consequences, rested (ch. 24:67). The sad experience of Jacob shows the wisdom of Abraham in forbidding the return of Isaac to Mesopotamia (ch. 24:6).
31. Leah was hated. Taken together, vs. 20, 30, 31, and 34 clarify the meaning of the word here translated “hated.” It need indicate nothing more than a less intense degree of love. The record of Jacob’s relations with Leah proves that he did not “hate” her in the sense that word generally conveys to us today. He simply felt and showed less affection for her than he did for her sister. The statement, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Mal. 1:2, 3; Rom. 9:13), must be understood in the same way. God felt and manifested a greater degree of affection for Jacob and his posterity than He did for Esau and his descendants. God chose the one to be His special channel of blessing to the world in preference to the other, not on an arbitrary basis, but because of character (see Deut. 7:6-8).
He opened her womb. As Jehovah had visited Sarah Gen. 21:1) and had been entreated for Rebekah (ch. 25:21), He interposed now in favor of Leah. By blessing Leah with children, while Rachel was permitted to remain barren for a time, God sought to foster love in Jacob’s heart for Leah. Thus a certain equality was established, for while Jacob loved Rachel for what she personally meant to him, he was led to appreciate Leah also.
32. Reuben. Each of the sons of Jacob received a name signifying his mother’s thoughts and emotions at the time of his birth. In one way or another these names all reflect the rivalry of the two sisters. Each name is related in sound to certain key words in the accompanying statement made by the mother. Thus, the first syllable of Reuben, which means “see, a son,” is from ra’ah, “to see,” used in her remark, “the Lord hath looked upon my affliction.” To Leah, her first child was evidence of Jehovah’s compassion, and well might she expect him to be the means by which she could win Jacob’s affection. In the first flush of maternal joy she was confident that Jacob’s heart would now turn to her.
33. Simeon. The birth of Reuben, apparently, did not fully meet Leah’s expectations with regard to Jacob. Her second son, born approximately a year later, she named Simeon, “hearing.” Perhaps, at last, God had heard how much she was hated.
34. Levi. The third of Leah’s sons, born in rapid succession, was named Levi, “attachment,” in the hope that this time her husband would truly become attached to her. In an Oriental harem it is the mother of the male child destined to become the heir who is most honored. Leah could not understand why Jacob did not turn his affections from her barren sister Rachel to her.
35. Judah. The birth of Leah’s fourth son caused her to exclaim, “Now will I praise Jehovah,” as if she knew by intuition that he was to be the ancestor of the kings of Israel, and of the Messiah. Thus she called him Judah, “the praised one.” Leah’s joy was complete.
Left bearing. Temporarily, that is. Jacob, in spite of himself, could not now help appreciating Leah as the mother of four sons, even though he did not love her so much as a wife. Lest Leah be unduly elated by her and good fortune, or forget that it was God who had blessed her, and lest Rachel be discouraged beyond measure, God again intervened. Perhaps a certain equilibrium of affection had been achieved.
Leah must have been a pious woman, a devoted wife, and a faithful mother. According to the Sacred Record she mentioned the name of Jehovah in connection with the birth of three of her first four sons. Although from an idolatrous family, she must have accepted the religion of her husband and become a sincere believer in Jehovah. In contrast, Rachel’s conversion seems at first to have accomplished little more than a superficial change. While outwardly she too had accepted her husband’s religion, her heart remained attached to the old family idols, or she may have taken them in an attempt to secure the family inheritance (ch. 31:19). Upon various occasions her conduct stands in sharp contrast to that of Leah, and seems to reflect a spirit far more selfish (see ch. 30:1-3, 8, 15). There can be no doubt that Leah’s excellence of character as well as her sincerity and piety eventually brought a change in Jacob’s attitude toward her (see chs. 31:4, 14; 49:31).
1. Give me children. Leah’s success as a mother aroused Rachel’s jealousy beyond the point of endurance. Now, envy is “rottenness of the bones” Prov. 14:30), and “jealousy is cruel as the grave” (S. of Sol. 8:6). Though Rachel enjoyed the greater share of her husband’s affection, she could not be content so long as her sister surpassed her in what was, to an Oriental, most important of all the duties of a wife—motherhood. Sarah had been married at least 25 years when Isaac was born. Rebekah had vainly waited 20 years for a child, when she and Isaac turned to God in prayer. But waiting in the face of competition made Rachel jealously impatient relatively soon after her marriage, and in bitterness of spirit she censured Jacob.
2. Am I in God’s stead? Jacob’s passionate displeasure was naturally aroused by his favorite wife’s unseemly words. He refused to take the blame for a situation only God could change. Rachel well knew that God alone could remove sterility (v. 6), but to this fact her jealousy of Leah appears for the moment to have blinded her. Jacob’s reply also manifests a certain lack of spirituality. Why did he not suggest to his disappointed and embittered wife that they seek help in prayer, as his parents had done before he himself was born? Instead of doing this he assented to a proposal that was nothing more than a sinful expedient.
3. Behold my maid Bilhah. Rachel’s proposal, which Jacob accepted and carried out, was as sinful as that of Sarah (ch. 16:2), but without Sarah’s excuse, since there was now no question as to an heir for Jacob. If such a reason had, indeed, existed, it would not have justified the act, which even in the case of Abraham had been so clearly condemned.
She shall bear upon my knees. This statement has been considered by many commentators as a Hebrew idiom expressing adoption (see ch. 50:23). It is possible that the expression originated in an ancient Oriental custom, whereby, at the birth of a child that was to be adopted, the one adopting the child would receive it as his own. Rachel probably had one of these customs in mind and planned to receive the baby from birth as her own.
4. Jacob went in unto her. Jacob’s laxity in marriage began with polygamy and ended in concubinage. Though God overruled this for the development of the seed of Israel, He did not thereby place His approval on such a custom.
6. Dan. Rachel, who had considered her sterility an injustice in view of Leah’s fecundity, looked upon the birth of Dan as divine vindication of her conduct. She clearly stated, this conviction when she said, “God has judged me” or “has procured for me justice,” for which reason she called him Dan, “judge.” Her statement, “and hath also heard my voice,” means either that she had prayed about the matter or that she considered Dan’s birth as God’s reply to her bitter complaints (v. 1).
8. Naphtali. After Dan’s birth Jacob either considered Bilhah as one of his legitimate wives or followed a renewed suggestion of Rachel to procure another son for her by her maid. At the birth of Bilhah’s second son, whom Rachel considered hers by proxy, she stated that she had “wrestled with Great wrestlings,” literally, with “wrestlings of ’Elohim [God],” with her sister and had been successful. Hence she called him Naphtali, “my wrestling.”
9. When Leah saw. Leah, accustomed to bearing a son each year, became impatient when it seemed she was to bear no more. That Rachel had obtained sons by her maid did not disturb Leah so long as there was prospect of her having sons of her own, but now she became the victim of envy, as her sister had been before. The means employed by Rachel to retain Jacob’s favor made Leah jealous, and jealousy drove her to the employment of the same means Rachel had used. However, Leah seems to have been conscious that she was pursuing a device of her own heart, since she made no reference to God in her statements at the birth of Zilpah’s two sons.
As for Jacob, it is surprising how easily he consented to the devious suggestions of his wives in order to increase their offspring. If he had felt some excuse for taking Bilhah in order to satisfy his beloved Rachel, who had no children of her own, by what excuse could he have quieted his conscience in regard to the proposal of Leah, who already had four sons? Having entered the path of wrongdoing, he seems neither to have seen the wrong of his conduct nor to have thought of its possible consequences. On the other hand, it must be admitted that in so doing he followed a common custom of his day. From the law code of Hammurabi and other cuneiform documents we know that such a practice was legally and socially acceptable, particularly when sterility prevented childbearing. The existence of this custom is probably the main reason that neither Abraham nor Jacob saw any great mistake in taking their servants as concubines.
11. Gad. The KJV translation of Leah’s exclamation at the birth of Zilpah’s son, “A troop cometh,” is based on Jewish tradition of the post-Biblical era. Actually, the expression means, “in good fortune,” as the LXX and Vulgate have it. Thus Leah called Zilpah’s son, God, “good fortune.”
13. Asher. Zilpah’s second son was named Asher, “the happy one,” or “bringer of happiness.” She said literally, “to my happiness, for daughters call me happy,” that is, as a mother of many children. In statements she made upon the birth of three of her own first four sons, Leah had recognized Jehovah (ch. 29:32, 33, 35). Now, with those born to her maid, she seems not to think of God. They were the successful and welcome result of her own clever devising.
14. Mandrakes. In Upper Mesopotamia the wheat harvest comes in May and June. The mandrake is an herb of the belladonna family with white and reddish blossoms. Its yellowish, odoriferous fruit is about the size and shape of a small apple. Today, as in ancient times, the fruit has been considered by people of the Near East as promoting fertility. Women of the Orient still make a philter of mandrakes, which was thought to stimulate sensual desire and to aid conception.
15. Is it a small matter? Rachel, apparently, desired the mandrakes as a means of removing her sterility. Leah was indignant at the very thought of parting with something that might increase her sister’s prospects of securing more of Jacob’s love than she already had. Rachel it seems, perhaps in contrast to Leah, had more faith in mandrakes than in God’s power. Eventually, however, she learned to trust in God rather than in mandrakes (see Gen. 30:22; Ps. 127:3).
18. Issachar. “God hearkened unto Leah” (v. 17), to show that it was not from such natural means as mandrakes, but from God, the Author of life, that life comes. Leah thought she saw in the birth of her fifth son a divine reward for having given her maid to her husband, apparently considering the action that had sprung from jealousy an evidence of self-denial. The name Issachar contains the idea of “reward,” but whether it means “there is a reward” or, according to a rabbinical tradition, “he bears a reward,” is not certain. Note that it was Leah, not Moses, who saw in Issachar’s birth a “reward” for sinful action.
20. Zebulun. In naming her sixth son Zebulun, “dwelling,” Leah expressed her hope that now Jacob would prefer her to her barren sister. She was bidding for the first place in his affections, bidding for him to “dwell” with her in the honored relationship of first wife.
21. Dinah. The name means “vindication.” She was not the only daughter of Jacob (chs. 37:35; 46:7) and is probably mentioned here in anticipation of the account of her misfortune in ch. 34. The word “afterwards” indicates that some time had passed since the birth of Zebulun. Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter when he returned to Canaan (see on ch. 34:1).
22. God remembered Rachel. It seems that Rachel eventually took her problem to the Lord in prayer. Her petition was heard, and faith obtained what impatience and unbelief had heretofore prevented.
23. My reproach. In the Ancient Orient a barren woman was not pitied but despised, and childlessness was considered a shame and a curse. This explains why women like Rebekah, Rachel, and Hannah felt it so keenly when they found themselves without children. Among the Jews, barrenness was considered as justifying divorce, polygamy, or concubinage.
24. Joseph. Meaning either “he takes away,” in allusion to the removal of her reproach, or “he shall add,” in anticipation of another son whom she hoped God would add to this first one. The removal of the reproach implied this possibility.
25. It came to pass. Upon the birth of Joseph, Jacob sought Laban’s permission to return to Canaan. According to vs. 25-28, it seems that Joseph was born at the end of Jacob’s 14th year of service for Laban, 7 years after his marriage (see ch. 29:21-28). Whether the 11 sons Jacob now had were all born during the 7 years intervening between his marriage and the close of this 14 years of service with Laban, or whether some of them were born during the 6 remaining years of the 20 he spent there (ch. 31:38), is not entirely clear.
The order in which Jacob’s sons are here listed does not necessarily represent the precise chronological order of their birth, but it seems to be based on their maternal parentage. Moses lists four for Leah, then two each for Bilhah, Zilpah, and again Leah, and one for Rachel—in these five groups. No two lists of Jacob’s sons recorded in the OT give them in precisely the same order (see Gen. 46:8-25; 49:3-27; Ex. 1:1-4; Num. 1:5-15; 1 Chron. 2:1, 2; etc.), and therefore it is impossible to discover any consistent pattern of birth sequence.
It would seem more than passing strange for 11 sons and 1 daughter (Gen. 29:32 to 30:24) to have been during Jacob’s first 7 years of married life, and none during the remaining 6 years he served with Laban. If, however, that be the case, then Leah bore seven children in seven years, with a distinct interval of time during which she bore no children (chs. 29:35; 30:9). If, during this interval, the four children of Bilhah and Zilpah were born in sequence, seven years would obviously be far too short. Except for the fact that Leah’s six sons are separated into two groups, it might be thought that Moses’ order here was based strictly on maternal parentage. Since this is obviously not the case, it would seem that the five groups are arranged in the order of the birth of the first son of each group, and that there is probably some overlapping between any two consecutive groups. This suggestion seems to accord best with the context and with known facts. Accordingly, the birth of Dan would be found to precede that of all the sons listed subsequent to him, but not necessarily to follow that of Judah. The same, in principle, would be true for Gad, Issachar, and Joseph. Close overlapping such as this would make possible the birth of the 11 sons within a 7-year period. But even if the principle of overlapping be accepted, there is no reason for requiring that all 11 be born during that 7 years; some may have come during the final 6 years of Jacob’s sojourn with Laban. The latter possibility, in fact, seems more likely, for, even granting the possibility of overlapping during the seven years, the rapid succession in which the births must then have come would be extremely close even according to Oriental standards.
28. Appoint me thy wages. Inasmuch as the second period of seven years terminated about the time of Joseph’s birth, Jacob requested Laban’s permission to return to Canaan (v. 25). Laban, however, was ill-disposed to lose so valuable a man, and yet was at a loss for a stratagem by which to keep him longer. The fact that he invited Jacob to state his wages did not prevent him from changing them ten times during the six years (ch. 31:7). Back of Laban was the evil one, intent upon thwarting God’s plan by preventing, if possible, Jacob’s return to the Land of Promise.
31. If thou wilt do this thing. When Laban repeated his offer, evincing his seriousness in making it, Jacob proposed terms on which he would be willing to stay. His proposal was based on the fact that in the Near East goats, as a rule, are black or dark brown, rarely white or spotted with white, and that sheep are for the most part white, seldom black or speckled. Inasmuch as Jacob’s proposal involved but a small part of Laban’s flocks and herds, Laban hastened to approve of the plan (v. 34). Jacob offered, furthermore, to begin separating them “that day,” so that Laban might be able to see just what the results were likely to be.
The further course of the narrative shows that more was involved in the agreement between Jacob and Laban. Either Moses chose to mention only the basic principle of the agreement, and so omitted the fact that the separation was to be repeated at regular intervals, or this point was not mentioned at first, but rather taken for granted by both parties. Either way, Jacob proceeded accordingly, to which even Laban, notwithstanding his frequent alterations in the contract, does not appear to have taken exception (ch. 31:7, 8, 41).
34. According to thy word. Laban cheerfully accepted the proposal, but did not leave Jacob to make the selection (vs. 34-36). He undertook that himself, probably to make certain that it was done according to his interpretation of the agreement. He then gave the off-color sheep and goats to his own sons (here mentioned for the first time) to tend, and left Jacob in charge of only the pure-color animals of the flock. Finally, Laban “set three days’ journey betwixt himself and Jacob,” namely, between the flock to be tended by himself through his sons and that to be tended by Jacob, in order to prevent breeding between the two flocks.
37. Jacob took him rods. The narrative of vs. 37-40 appears on the surface to contradict known laws of genetics, and is sometimes cited as proof that the Bible is unscientific. However, a careful study of the context and a comparison of the narrative with known facts relating to the laws of genetics reveals what took place and vindicates in a truly remarkable way the inspiration of the Scriptures. For a detailed, scientific discussion of the subject, see F. L. Marsh, Studies in Creationism, pp. 367-374.
Thinking to safeguard his own interests in the bargain proposed by Jacob, Laban immediately separated flocks and herds (v. 36), a fact which indicates that Laban also knew something of the laws of heredity. He placed all the off-color sheep, goats, and cattle under the care of his own sons, intending thereby to remove them from Jacob’s charge and thus avoid the possibility of breeding these off-color characteristics back into what, visibly at least, was pure stock. What Laban did not know was that some of the apparently purebred animals might still carry recessive color characteristics that could be transmitted to their offspring. Laban thought he had outwitted Jacob by the shrewd device of separating the flocks.
Jacob, for his part, had no doubt been counting on selective breeding, concerning which he must have known at least as much as Laban did. This procedure would have been entirely legitimate according to a strict interpretation of the contract. The distinction Jacob made between strong and weak cattle (v. 41) is evidence that observation had taught him something of the laws of heredity. Now that Laban had separated all the off-color animals Jacob was probably at a loss to know what to do, for it is apparent that he know no more about the transmission of recessive characteristics than did Laban. Trusting to his own supposed cleverness and to the application of the ancient and still popular superstition that offspring may be marked in a way corresponding to sights or fears experienced by the mother during the prenatal period, he set up the procedure explained in these verses. Says F. L. Marsh:
“All marking of the offspring such as that which Jacob thought he was accomplishing in Laban’s flocks, is completely impossible. … In the placenta and umbilical cord, which constitute the only connection between the mother and the fetus, there are no nerves. … Thus absolutely no mechanism exists whereby the mother can mark her offspring in the way that Jacob thought he was accomplishing the marking” (Studies in Creationism, pp. 368, 369. Italics in the original).
A further apparent difficulty lies in the fact that Jacob’s method seems to have proved method eminently successful (v. 43; ch. 31:7-9). Lest Jacob, however, credit his own ingenuity and superstition, God revealed to him in a dream how the recessive, off-color characteristics were transmitted through apparently pure-color parents to their offspring (ch. 31:10-12). What the angel told Jacob in a dream could only apply to the flocks and herds under Jacob’s care, for all off-color animals had previously been removed by Laban (ch. 30:35, 36). To the operation of this law of genetics God added His special blessing, for recessive characteristics would not normally show up in so marked a manner as is indicated in v. 43. In so doing, He may perhaps have utilized principles of genetics at present only imperfectly understood.
This revelation of a law of genetics not discovered and understood by scientists until a few decades ago attests the scientific accuracy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Professor Marsh closes his discussion of the subject by saying:
“The Scriptures teach that such markings among domestic stock are the result of hereditary factors in both parents working according to Mendelian principles and are not due to maternal impressions. A fair reading of the text thus shows that that incident in the Scriptures, which is so often cited as proof that the Bible is a book of fables, is in actuality one of the important reasons for believing that it is indeed an inspired volume” (ibid., p. 374. Italics in the original).
In passing, it may be observed that the Hebrew word translated “hazel” in the KJV should be rendered “almond,” and the “chestnut tree” as “plane tree.” The Oriental plane tree belongs to the maple family.
41. The stronger cattle. The ancient Jewish rabbis understood this passage as meaning that Jacob practiced his trick during the spring breeding season only, since the ancients considered animals conceived in the spring and born in the autumn stronger than those conceived in the autumn and born in the spring. Modern commentators are inclined, however, to apply it to the early- and late-born lambs of the same season, since early-spring lambs are more valuable than those born later in the season. According to this opinion, Jacob did not conduct his experiments with the second litter of cattle, because he knew they would be weaker, but with the early, stronger litter. Whatever method Jacob used, he did so to strengthen and increase his own flocks, obviously at the expense of weakening and diminishing Laban’s.
43. The man increased exceedingly. The story of Jacob’s relations with Laban is one in which cunning and skill are matched against avarice and foul play. Cunning, which applies superior knowledge, is often the weapon of the weak against the strong. Men who are grasping and treacherous but lacking in wisdom are often outwitted by men of equally devious but more clever ways. Justice was on Jacob’s side. He was simply taking advantage of his new position to offset the disadvantage under which he had labored for 14 years. However, he was lacking in strict honesty and integrity. That openness and simplicity of character people expect to find in a righteous man were lacking. Jacob’s plan was most successful, to be sure, but does not commend itself as one that a servant of Jehovah would be expected to follow. Jacob erred, furthermore, in relying more upon his own craft to secure the divine blessing promised him than upon the power and providence of God. For his part, Jacob, however, attributed his success to the power of God (ch. 31:9).
1. The words of Laban’s sons. The claim of Laban’s sons was obviously exaggerated, since Laban still had flocks when Jacob left him (v. 19). Laban’s sons hinted that Jacob had secured his wealth by fraud, though they did not openly accuse him of that crime. They could not prove that he had in any way violated any provision of the agreement between him and their father, though they were sure he must have done so.
2. The countenance of Laban. What Jacob overheard was confirmed by what he observed in Laban’s attitude. As a result of the fact that nothing Laban did seemed to hinder in the least Jacob’s rapid increase in wealth, even the pretense of friendliness that had marked their relations in the past had now changed to overt antagonism. In the providence of God, Laban’s attitude became the means of bringing about Jacob’s return to the land of his birth. Jacob’s conviction that the time had come to return to the land of his fathers was confirmed by a direct message from God.
4. Called Rachel and Leah. At some distance from home with the flocks, Jacob called his wives to the field for greater secrecy in planning their departure. Had this been done at home, members of Laban’s household might have overheard their conversion and reported to Laban in time for him to return and prevent their leaving. Despite all their precautions, word reached Laban the third day (vs. 19, 22). It seems that some change had taken place in the supervision of the flocks and herds, for Jacob was now in charge of his own (see ch. 30:35, 36), or at least had access to them. Likely, it was Laban’s absence, shearing his own sheep, that made possible Jacob’s escape with all his property, an event that would obviously have been impossible otherwise (vs. 1, 29). Perhaps Jacob was simultaneously shearing his own sheep, and sent for his wives and all their belongings, to erect tents on the spot under the pretext of festivities usually held upon such occasions. Thus he prepared the way for a departure that would not arouse suspicion in advance.
7. Changed my wages. “Ten” may not have been meant literally. It was used, perhaps, simply as a round number to indicate very frequent change, much as we would say “a dozen times” (cf. Dan. 1:20). Laban apparently made repeated attempts to limit the original agreement by changing its provisions. That Jacob passed over in silence his own stratagem and attributed to God’s blessing all that he secured by craft implies consciousness that the means employed were not completely honest.
9. God hath taken away. Jacob felt, perhaps, that had it not been God’s will to bless him, his own efforts would not have succeeded. Therefore, and not without reason, he deemed it right to attribute his increased wealth to God’s benevolent care. It is certain that he felt his own devices and the blessing of God not to be mutually exclusive.
11. Spake … in a dream. It is uncertain whether this dream came separately from the brief revelation of v. 3, or whether it is a more complete account of that divine communication. Some commentators suggest that it came at the very beginning of Jacob’s last six-year term of service. Some think that it was only an ordinary dream Jacob connected with the one he had received at Bethel, and now related in order to impress his wives. This view is untenable because of the biological accuracy of the information revealed in it, information which was contrary to Jacob’s own superstitious beliefs (see on ch. 30:37-42).
14. Rachel and Leah answered. The fact that the two sisters were in perfect agreement in regard to their father’s conduct, in spite of their own mutual jealousies, is clear evidence of the validity of their complaints. Laban’s heartless cruelty and insatiable greed were obviously so pronounced that even his own daughters eventually rose in protest. They complained that in spite of being freeborn, legitimate children, no inheritance had been given them, and they had been sold like slaves. Apparently, all of Laban’s property had been transferred to his sons, for his daughters received none of it.
16. All the riches. Rachel and Leah recognized the hand of God in their husband’s remarkable prosperity. Regrettable as their alienation from their father may be, his severity and meanness made such a reaction understandable if not inevitable. On the other hand, they felt bound to their husband, the father of their children, in a close and tender union. Their lives and fortunes were now completely identified with his. For the first time the two sisters are presented as united in opinion. That Rachel had but recently become the mother of a son herself may have eased the tension and jealousy that had existed between them during the first years of their married life.
19. Laban went to shear his sheep. The RSV translation, “had gone,” is preferable to that of the KJV, “went,” for Laban had probably left home before Jacob called his wives to the field, and not after their decision to leave Haran. The fact that Rachel was able to steal her father’s images suggests Laban’s absence from home at the time of her own departure. Jacob knew that his father-in-law would be detained several days by the task of shearing his sheep and the festivities commonly connected with it (see 1 Sam. 25:4, 11; 2 Sam. 13:23), to which friends were often invited. Whether Jacob had not been invited, or had declined Laban’s invitation, owing to the dissension existing between them, is uncertain. But it did afford him an excellent opportunity to escape unhindered.
Rachel had stolen the images. These “images,” teraphim (see Judges 17:5; 18:14; etc.), were usually small (v. 34) human figurines, occasionally larger, often made of wood (1 Sam. 19:13-16). Near Eastern excavations have brought them to light in profuse numbers, made of wood, clay, and precious metals. Some represent male gods, but the majority are figurines of female deities 2 to 3 in. in length. They were used as household gods or were carried on the body as protective charms. Since most of them represent nude goddesses whose sexual features are accentuated, they were probably thought to promote fertility. This may be the reason Rachel especially cherished them. Cuneiform texts from Nuzi in Mesopotamia reveal that the household gods were inherited by adopted sons only when no actual sons were present at the father’s death. If a man had sons, his gods could not go to his daughters. Rachel therefore had no right to her father’s household gods, as Jacob frankly admitted (Gen. 31:32). Documents found at Nuzi, in Mesopotamia, indicate that in the patriarchal age the possession of the family’s household gods, such as Laban had, guaranteed to their holder the title to his father’s properties (ANET 219, 220). This was probably the chief reason why Laban was so eager to retrieve them (see vs. 30, 33-35).
20. Jacob stole away. Literally, he “deceived the heart of Laban the Aramaean,” or he “outwitted Laban” (RSV). For the expression “the Syrian,” meaning the Aramaean, see on ch. 25:20.
21. Passed over the river. The Euphrates, pre-eminently the river of Bible times (1 Kings 4:21; Ezra 4:10, 16). How Jacob succeeded in crossing the Euphrates with his flocks, particularly in the springtime (Gen. 31:19), is not known. There are, of course, fords at various places along the river in this vicinity. Jacob’s immediate destination, Gilead, was the mountainous region south of the Yarmuk River. Gilead is mentioned here in view of the fact that Laban overtook him there. The name Gilead (Galeed) was given it by Jacob upon that occasion (v. 47). Its former name is unknown.
23. Pursued after him. Since Laban received word two or three days after Jacob’s flight (v. 22), and overtook him after a pursuit of seven days, it appears that the two met nine or ten days after Jacob’s departure from the vicinity of Haran. The mountains of Gilead lie more than 275 mi. from Haran, a distance that can be covered by fast camels in 7 days, the time required by Laban. But it would be impossible to drive the flocks and herds such a distance in that length of time, since they could cover no more than 9 or 10 mi. a day. Apparently Laban did not pursue the fugitives immediately upon receiving word of their flight. He knew that Jacob could make but slow progress (ch. 33:13, 14), and that he himself need therefore be in no haste. Since Rachel had taken her father’s household gods, her departure must have been from Haran, where her father’s home was situated (ch. 29:4, 5). The fact that Laban knew his idols had been stolen suggests that he must have returned home before pursuing Jacob. He may have finished the shearing of his sheep, concluded the accompanying festivities, and arranged for the care of the flocks Jacob had forsaken before leaving Haran. The time that elapsed between his receiving word of Jacob’s flight and his own departure may easily have been 30 days or more.
24. God came to Laban. In a most unexpected way God fulfilled the promise given to Jacob 20 years earlier (ch. 28:15, 20, 21). It is unusual that God should have revealed Himself to an idolater thus in a dream. Laban, who had become acquainted with Abraham’s religion through his grandfather Nahor, through Abraham’s servant Eliezer (ch. 24:31, brGE 24:50>50), and more recently through his long association with his own nephew, recognized the true God as the speaker in his dream the night previous to his overtaking Jacob (v. 29).
Good or bad. This expression, literally “from good to bad,” is proverbial (Gen. 24:50; 2 Sam. 13:22). Laban was not to compel Jacob to return, either by force or by making further attractive inducements.
27. Wherefore didst thou flee. Overtaking Jacob, Laban assumed the role of a good-natured but grievously wronged and deeply hurt father. Did Jacob not realize how easily Laban could compel him to return to Haran? That Laban was talking with him at all instead of treating him as he presumably deserved, Jacob owed solely to the intervention of the God of his fathers the previous night. But why should Jacob’s ardent longing to return to his father lead him to steal his father-in-law’s gods? This was Laban’s only legitimate complaint, a polished shaft aimed to hit hard and well. Perhaps Jacob had urged his father-in-law to discard his heathen gods, pointing out that idols were of no avail, and to accept the true religion. And now it seemed that he himself must have gained so much confidence in Laban’s family gods as to be unwilling to leave Haran without them! Or did Laban fear that Jacob was thereby attempting to secure the rest of his property (see on v. 19)?
32. Let him not live. In defense of his secret and hasty departure Jacob pleaded fear, an honest and forthright confession. As for the charge of theft, Jacob voluntarily submitted to the provisions of Mesopotamian law. This provided the death penalty for certain kinds of theft, including that of sacred objects (Code of Hammurabi, sec. 6).
Before our brethren. This was a reference to Laban’s relatives (v. 23), Jacob’s brothers by marriage.
33. The two maidservants’ tents. This passage affords an interesting glimpse into the custom of the time whereby not only husbands and wives but each individual wife and concubine possessed a separate tent.
34. The camel’s furniture. To judge from its modern counterpart, a woman’s riding saddle was probably made of wickerwork and resembled a basket or cradle. There was a carpet upon the floor, and it was protected against wind, rain, and sun by means of a canopy and curtains. Light was admitted by openings in the sides. In covering her theft by subtlety and deception Rachel proved herself a true daughter of Laban. How little an imprint had the religion of her husband made upon her character! To be sure, of course, he was hardly a paragon of virtue himself.
35. I cannot rise up. Oriental custom and politeness required children of every age and rank to rise up in the presence of their parents (Lev. 19:32; 1 Kings 2:19). Rachel’s excuse was therefore hardly in order.
The custom of women. A periphrasis for the menses (cf. ch. 18:11), which under the later Mosaic legislation incurred ceremonial uncleanness (Lev. 15:19). That this particular statute was in force prior to the Mosaic law, at least among the Aramaeans, may be inferred from this passage. That Laban did not require Rachel to stand so that he might search “the camel’s furniture” may have been due to fear of defilement.
Found not the images. Thrice repeated, this phrase emphasizes the thoroughness of Laban’s search and Rachel’s success in hiding the stolen objects.
36. Jacob was wroth. Laban knew that his family gods had disappeared when Jacob left; of this he was positive. In spite of the dream of the night before, it may be that he was still scheming to put Jacob on the defensive. The latter had voluntarily agreed to surrender to Laban anyone found guilty (v. 32). Perhaps Laban hoped to fix upon him responsibility for the deed, either directly or indirectly, and so pressed his case, if he might thereby yet secure Jacob’s return. Laban seems to have been aware that guilt on Jacob’s part would have removed him from the protecting hand of God. With the complete collapse of Laban’s charges, Jacob, no longer on the defensive, now pressed his case against a meek and subdued Laban. His service for Laban was above criticism, a fact which even Laban himself did not presume to deny (v. 43).
39. Of my hand. Jacob had a legal basis for complaint against Laban, for charging him with the loss of animals to wild beasts and to thieves. This practice was contrary to the ancient laws of Mesopotamia, for, as the Code of Hammurabi (sec. 267) shows, a shepherd was to repay only such losses as were incurred through his own neglect.
42. The fear of Isaac. It seems strange that Jacob mentioned this in addition to the “God of Abraham,” since both expressions apparently refer to the same Being. This may have been due to the fact that Abraham’s religious experience was not nearly so real to him as that of his father Isaac. Abraham had long been dead, whereas Isaac was yet living and practicing “the fear” of God. It seems that here the word “fear” is used as an alternate name for Jehovah, and should be rendered “Fear,” as in the RSV. The use of this expression here and in v. 53 suggests the deep impression made upon Jacob by the devotion with which Isaac practiced his religion.
Rebuked thee yesternight. Jacob pointed out that by the warning given Laban in the dream of the previous night, God had already pronounced sentence upon the matter at issue between them. Though he did not say so, Jacob may have read into the divine intervention on his behalf God’s approval for all he had done to increase his possessions. Perhaps he reasoned that since on his own part he had only met cunning with cunning and deceit with deceit, Laban had no right to punish him or to expect compensation. Extenuation of Jacob’s conduct may be found in the heartless treatment accorded him by his father-in-law, but the fact that God protected him against revenge did not vindicate his course of action (Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15).
43. These children. Laban tacitly acknowledged the truth of Jacob’s words and admitted that he had no just ground for complaint. He could do nothing but accept the existing situation and the inevitable separation it entailed. Nevertheless, his haughty spirit broke forth once more as he laid claim to all of Jacob’s possessions. Not one word of recognition or appreciation came from the lips of Laban for Jacob’s 20 years of diligent labor. Instead, he assumed the role of a greathearted and noble benefactor, who would never think of treating his own kin with less than magnanimity.
44. Let us make a covenant. With this in mind, Laban proposed a formal treaty of friendship. This may have been prompted also by the fear that Jacob might seek reconciliation with Esau and return to take revenge (v. 52). It is not necessary to assume with some commentators that v. 44 is incomplete in its present form, and that the antecedent of “it” was either the proposed memorial, or God, whose presence was assumed. “It” may just as well refer to “the covenant,” perhaps made up—as was common in Mesopotamia—in the form of a cuneiform tablet, sealed and signed by the two parties and their relatives.
45. A pillar. Jacob evinced his assent to Laban’s proposal by proceeding at once to erect a stone memorial similar to the one at Bethel (ch. 28:18). Both groups joined, also, in gathering stones to be used as a table for the covenant meal.
47. Jacob called it Galeed. Both names, one Aramaic and the other Hebrew, have practically the same meaning, a “heap of witness.” That the earliest known non-Biblical Aramaic inscriptions do not reach back to the time of Jacob, but date from a later period, does not prove the nonexistence of Aramaic in the 17th century b.c. The earliest non-Biblical evidence for the existence of such a language consists of certain Aramaic words found in the alphabetic cuneiform tablets of ancient Ugarit in Syria, dating from the 15th century b.c. Our Bible, therefore, contains the earliest attested Aramaic words known. Each of the two men gave to this memorial a name in his own language, the two being identical in meaning. Inasmuch as the region later became a possession of Israel, the Hebrew name Gilead (Galeed) was applied to it. This includes not only the vicinity of Mt. Gilead itself but all of the mountainous uplands east of the Jordan between the Yarmuk and Jabbok rivers.
49. Mizpah. The site also received another name, Mizpah, meaning “watchtower.” It became, somewhat later, the site of a town that derived its name from the “pile of witness” erected by Laban and his relatives (Judges 10:17; 11:11, 29, 34). This town was at one time the residence of the judge Jephthah (Judges 11:34).
The Lord watch. That Laban called on Jehovah, the heavenly watchman, to protect his daughters, does not prove that he accepted Jehovah as the representative of his rights. With his tribal concept of deity, Laban was willing to concede the power of Jacob’s God, at least in Canaan if not in Haran. What else could he do, particularly after the dream of the night before? Perhaps, also, he said this with the thought that Jehovah alone could bind the conscience of Jacob.
50. If thou salt afflict. In spite of his selfish disposition, Laban’s paternal instinct made him jealous for the welfare of his daughters and solicitous of their future. This seems a little strange in the light of Laban’s own conduct (v. 15); he himself had been the cause of Jacob’s polygamy. But that, as it were, was all within the family. And if Jacob should take other wives, the affection and inheritance that would fall to his own daughters and to their children would thereby be diminished. Laban remained possessive to the very end.
51. This heap. Should either of them in the future think to take revenge upon the other, this monument was to be reminder of their pact of friendship. As upon this occasion hostile intent had been subdued, so in the future, memory of the event was to deter any possible punitive expedition. From Laban’s point of view he was making a great sacrifice in permitting Jacob to escape unscathed, for Jacob’s rapidly increasing wealth and power, together with a possible reconciliation with Esau, made any future prospect of overpowering Jacob dim indeed. Laban, it seems, was eager to impress Jacob with his own magnanimous spirit.
53. The God of their father. It is known from Joshua 24:2 and from the existence of idols in Laban’s house (Gen. 31:30, 35), that Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia worshiped other gods. This might seem to indicate that “the God of Nahor” could not be Jehovah. But it is known also that Nahor “cherished the knowledge and worship of the true God” (PP 171) along with his idolatry. The verb “judge” is in the plural, in seeming support of the view that Laban was speaking of two distinct gods. However, the LXX, the Peshitto, and the Vulgate render “judge” in the singular, recognizing the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor as one. It would seem that Laban was seeking to bring about unity between himself and Jacob, now that separation was inevitable, by calling attention to the fact that their grandfathers, Abraham and Nahor, and great-grandfather Terah worshiped the same God.
The fear of … Isaac. See on v. 42. Perhaps Moses added this expression to make it clear that Jacob “sware” by Jehovah and not by any of the gods of Nahor.
54. Jacob offered sacrifice. It seems that only Jacob participated in the sacrificial rites he considered essential to the ratification of the covenant. Laban was only an observer, but took part again in the ceremonial feast Jacob prepared.
55. Kissed his sons and his daughters. It does not appear that Laban kissed Jacob on taking his final leave, as he had done upon meeting him the first time (ch. 29:13). Though Laban and Jacob parted reconciled to each other, and not as enemies, they were not exactly the best of friends.
And blessed them. Laban, whose better nature appears to have prevailed as a result of the covenant, or perhaps of the feast, or of the contemplated parting with his daughters, poured out his feelings in a farewell blessing upon them. Thus Laban disappears from the Scripture narrative. With this, all contact between the family in Canaan and relatives in Mesopotamia ceases.
2. Mahanaim. Meaning “double camp,” or “double host,” in reference to two bands of angels, one advancing before him and one following behind. Their appearance must have reminded Jacob of the vision of the ladder at Bethel, on his flight from Canaan. Then, angels ascending and descending had represented to him the divine protection and assistance that were to be his upon his journey and during his sojourn in a foreign land. Now the angelic host again brought assurance of divine help, this time in anticipation of his dreaded meeting with Esau, and also as a renewal of the promise to bring him back in safety to his native land. Inasmuch as Jacob saw the angels while traveling, they cannot have appeared to him in a dream. The manner of revelation, however, is not clear.
A distinguished city was later founded near the place where the angels appeared (Joshua 13:26, 30; 21:38; 2 Sam. 2:8, 12, 29). Some have identified it with the present Machnâ, some 12 mi. northwest of Djerash, the ancient Gerasa.
4. My lord Esau. From Mahanaim, Jacob sent messengers to his brother, Esau. After Jacob’s flight from Beersheba, Esau seems to have moved temporarily to the southeast, to the land of Seir, or Edom, whose original inhabitants, the Horites, he later dispossessed. The messengers were to draw a clear distinction between “my lord Esau” and “thy servant Jacob.” Their task was to conciliate Esau, chiefly by emphasis on Jacob’s humility—tacit admission of his wrong—and on the fact that Jacob relinquished all claims to the inheritance. By pointing out that he was returning with great wealth, Jacob was not boasting but rather making it clear to Esau that he returned with no desire to share in the patrimony. Being himself in the wrong, Jacob realized that the first step toward reconciliation must be made by him. With this in mind, he added to his message an expression of hope that Esau would forgive and accept him on friendly terms.
6. He cometh to meet thee. That Esau was attended by 400 armed followers is evidence that he had become a powerful chieftain. Perhaps he had already begun to live by the sword (ch. 27:40).
If Esau’s enmity toward his brother had softened during the years, it seems that he never mentioned the fact to his parents, with the result that Rebekah had been unable to fulfill her promise of sending for Jacob (ch. 27:45). The latter’s uncertainty as to his brother’s state of mind, and anxiety occasioned by the report of the messengers, alarmed him in the extreme. Esau’s reason for going to meet Jacob with such a company was, first, to impress Jacob with due respect for his superior power, second, to ensure a satisfactory understanding, and third, to use force if necessary to safeguard his own interests. He was prepared, in other words, for any eventuality.
7. He divided the people. Fearing the worst, Jacob divided his large family and numerous flocks into two camps. It is easy to blame Jacob for a lack of faith and trust in God. However, his considered behavior under such adverse circumstances is a demonstration of sound judgment. Completely defenseless, he would not even make a show of force.
9. God of my father Abraham. Remarkable for its simplicity and energy, this model prayer gives expression to all that is essential in such a petition: (1) True humility, (2) a recognition of God’s mercy, (3) a plea for protection from imminent danger, (4) the repetition of past promises, (5) appreciation for past providences.
10. I passed over this Jordan. Jacob seems to have been close to the place where he had crossed the Jordan on his flight 20 years before. The striking contrast between his previous poverty and present prosperity he accepts as a token of God’s blessing and the fulfillment of His promise at Bethel. Then he had crossed empty-handed, save for the blessing of his father and the promise of God. Now, 20 years later, he was returning to the land of his nativity with a large family and great possessions. Either of the “two bands” (v. 7) would have been sufficient to make him a prosperous man.
11. The mother with the children. Literally, “the mother upon the children.” The picture is of a mother who casts herself upon her children to protect them with her own body from the killer. Jacob knew that if provoked, his brother would not hesitate to slay them one and all. He feared for the worst.
12. As the sand. This was the sense, though not the exact wording, of the Bethel promise (ch. 28:14), which had compared the number of Jacob’s descendants to the dust of the ground. Before that, Abraham’s promised seed had been compared to the dust of the earth (ch. 13:16), to the stars of heaven (ch. 15:5), and to the sand upon the seashore (ch. 22:17).
13. He lodged there. Although trusting in the Lord for protection, Jacob neglected no means of reconciliation with his brother. Pitching camp for the night in the place where he had received tidings of Esau’s approach, he selected a respectable present consisting of more than 550 head of sheep and cattle. These he sent forward in several droves to meet Esau, as a “present” from his “servant” Jacob. The assortment of animals selected was representative of the usual possessions of a nomad (see Job 1:3; 42:12). The proportion of male to female animals was probably based on what experience had shown to be desirable for breeding purposes.
16. Every drove by themselves. The division of Jacob’s gift of appeasement into several separate droves, which followed one another at intervals, was designed to have a cumulative effect and therefore be more impressive. Each drove was in itself a valuable gift.
23. Sent them over the brook. Earlier in the day Jacob had sent forward his gift to Esau. As night drew on he sent all that he had, family and possessions, over the Jabbok, desiring to spend the night alone in prayer. The Jabbok, today called Nahr ez-Zerqa, “the blue river,” is an eastern tributary of the Jordan. Flowing through a deep canyon, it enters the larger stream some 25 mi. north of the Dead Sea.
24. Jacob was left alone. Jacob had remained on the northern bank of the river in order that he might be alone to seek God in prayer. In the present situation his usual cleverness was of no avail. God alone could be of help to mitigate Esau’s anger and to save Jacob and his family.
There wrestled a man. That Jacob’s antagonist was neither a human being nor an ordinary angel is to be inferred from the fact that Jacob spoke of Him as God (v. 30). The prophet Hosea also refers to Him both as God and as an Angel (Hosea 12:3, 4). This celestial visitor was none other than Christ (PP 197). Such an appearance of Christ in human form is neither strange nor unique (Gen. 18:1). On the “time of Jacob’s trouble,” see on Jer. 30:7.
25. The hollow of his thigh. The unknown wrestler used only the strength of a human being in his struggle with Jacob. Thinking his assailant a mortal enemy, Jacob fought as if for his life. But, as dawn approached, a single touch of more than human strength sufficed to cripple Jacob, and he became aware of the fact that his antagonist was more than human.
26. Let me go. The Angel sought to withdraw before daybreak, but gave no reason for wishing to do so. Commentators have suggested a desire on His part either to prevent others from witnessing the scene or perhaps to prevent Jacob from seeing Him.
I will not let thee go. The crippling touch and the divine voice had convinced Jacob that the One with whom he had thus wrestled for hours was a messenger from heaven. Having for hours sought desperately for divine help, Jacob felt he could not afford to let Him go without first receiving assurance of the pardon and protection for which he longed. This he asked as an outright gift, realizing that he had nothing to offer God in return. He proposed no bargain; his desperate situation was his only plea. The help he needed could come only from God. For the first time in his life he knew his own resources to be inadequate. From his birth, when he had caught his brother by the heel, to his last years in Haran, when he had outwitted his uncle Laban (Hosea 12:3, 4), Jacob had approached the solution of life’s problems by questionable methods of his own devising. He was now a changed man. Whereas in the past he had relied upon his own wisdom and strength, he had now learned to trust wholly in God.
28. Thy name shall be called. The great spiritual change that had come over Jacob was now symbolized by a change of name indicating the nature of his new relationship to God. The names of Abram and Sarai had likewise been changed (see ch. 17:5, 15); and from that time forward the Scriptures always call them by their new names. But in the subsequent history of Jacob his old and new names are used more or less interchangeably. Jacob’s new name, Israel, became the name of the nation that sprang from his body. For him, the change of name, like his change of character, was far more significant than that of his grandparents. It represented his transformation from a “deceiver” of men to a “victor of God.” The new name, ostensibly a token of physical victory, was to be a perpetual reminder of the completed spiritual renovation that had taken place.
No more Jacob. For the meaning of the name Jacob as “heel catcher” or “deceiver,” see on ch. 25:26.
But Israel. A combination of yiśra[h], “he fights” or “he rules,” from śarah, “to fight” or “to rule,” and ’El, “God.” Without the accompanying interpretation given by God Himself, the name might be translated “God fights” or “God rules.” But the meaning as intended and explained by God is, “he fights with God,” or “he prevails over God,” or “he rules with God.”
The honored name Israel was henceforth to memorialize this night of struggle. As applied to the descendants of Jacob, it implied the transformation of character God sought for in them and their destined role of ruling with God. The name was transferred first to his literal descendants and later to his spiritual posterity, who also were to be victors as he had been (John 1:47; Rom. 9:6).
Power with God and with men. Literally, “contended [śaritha, also from śarah] with God and with men.” This obviously refers to Jacob’s nocturnal wrestling with God and to his protracted struggles with Esau and Laban. From all these he had finally emerged victorious. This was particularly true of his experience the night before, from which he emerged a new man, a victor over deceit, dishonesty, and self-confidence. He was a changed man (see 1 Sam. 10:6, 9).
29. Thy name. Perhaps the knowledge that he had met the Lord and talked with Him face to face would either have frightened Jacob or led to such personal elation as to overshadow the far more important lesson he was to learn from this experience. The parting blessing of the Angel was to suffice.
30. Peniel. As Jacob had given the name Bethel to the place where he saw God in a dream (ch. 28:19), and Mahanaim to the spot where a host of angels appeared to him on the way (ch. 32:2), he now memorialized the spot of his personal encounter with God by a name meaning the “face of God.” The fact that he had seen God face to face and yet lived was indeed a miracle (see Ex. 33:20; Judges 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5).
My life is preserved. That is, “I am preserved, and shall be preserved.” These words echo Jacob’s new-found new-found faith. Whatever might befall him, so long as it be within the will of God, he was confident that a divine hand would preserve him from all evil. Even the things that seemed, at the time they occurred, to be against him, proved to be providential (ch. 42:36). Peniel was the turning point of Jacob’s life.
31. Penuel. Some expositors have suggested that Penuel was the original name of the place, and that Jacob changed it by the alteration of one vowel to Peniel. More likely, however, Penuel is an old form of the same word. The name appears again in Judges 8:8, 9, 17; 1 Kings 12:25, and also in an Egyptian list of Palestinian city names. Its exact location has not been definitely determined. Some scholars have identified it with the Tulul edh-Dhahab, on the Jabbok, 7 mi. east of the Jordan. Others seek it somewhat farther to the east.
He halted. Like Paul, who centuries later bore a “thorn” in his flesh (2 Cor. 12:7), Jacob departed from the scene of the supreme experience of his life bearing a memorial of his conflict and victory there. Though physically lame, probably for the remainder of his life, in Jacob’s unfettered soul he enjoyed the richest blessings of God. Every fight leaves its scars. Like Jacob, every faithful believer, in passing through his own Peniel experience, may expect to bear some reminder of his intense struggle against self, with its inherited tendencies and evil inclinations. Even our Lord Jesus Christ bears the signs of the fierce conflict through which He passed while on earth, and these He will continue to bear for all eternity. Ours will vanish and be forgotten (2 Cor. 4:17; Isa. 65:17). Whereas our scars are the result of our struggle against self, the nailprints in the hands of Christ came through conflict on our behalf with the powers of darkness.
32. The sinew which shrank. The meaning of the Hebrew word translated “shrank” is unknown. The rendering of the KJV is based on the LXX, enarkesen, “became feeble,” “became numb,” or “was dislocated.” Perhaps it should be translated “hip,” with the phrase reading, “the sinew of the hip.” Orthodox Jews refrain from eating this portion of any animals used for food, but how this part of Jacob’s anatomy came to be identified as the “sinew” that “shrank,” is uncertain. Though not mentioned elsewhere in the OT, the Jewish Talmud definitely regards this custom as a law whose violation is to be punished with several stripes (Tract Cholin, Mishna, 7). Since Jews in ancient times did not distinguish clearly just what “sinew” was meant, it is understood today as applying to the interior cord and nerve of the hindquarter of animals killed for food.
The narrative of vs. 24-32 contains three points of special interest to every Jew. It explains why he is called an Israelite, and traces this name to a distant ancestor who wrestled with God that he might obtain it. It points with interest to an otherwise insignificant village, Peniel, where the event took place. Finally, it explains the origin of the custom of not eating the sinew designated, but rather of regarding it with awe.
He divided the children. The reason for this measure is not clear. Jacob either put Rachel and Joseph at the rear for reasons of security, or to introduce his favorite wife and her son to Esau last. Again, it may be that social custom prescribed such an arrangement. The previous division of the caravan into two camps (ch. 32:7, 8) may have been abandoned as unnecessary after his experience the preceding night (see on ch. 32:30). Or it may be that the “people” mentioned in ch. 32:7, 8 were the servants and shepherds and not his wives and children, whom he kept with himself. The immediate family would thus be joined to one of the two bands, or may have been separate from both.
3. Bowed himself. This Oriental custom is attested in the Amarna Letters of the 14th century b.c., in which Palestinian princes wrote an Egyptian king that they fell down before Pharaoh’s feet, either “seven times,” or “seven times and another seven times,” or possibly “seven times seven times.” Seven bows before a superior seem to have been considered a sign of perfect humility and unqualified submission. By this manifestation of deference, Jacob hoped to win the heart of his brother. It represented complete abandonment of any claim to special privileges previously secured by treachery.
4. Esau embraced him. At the sight of his twin brother, Esau was carried away by natural feelings of brotherly affection. Even if there had still been malice in Esau’s heart, it was overcome by Jacob’s humility. Realizing that he had nothing to fear from Jacob, he allowed free rein to the natural emotions of his heart.
5. Saw the women and the children. During the silent embrace of the long-separated brothers, Jacob’s 4 wives and 12 children had come near.
8. All this drove. Though he knew quite well the purpose of the several droves (ch. 32:18), Esau nevertheless inquired concerning them. With obvious Oriental courtesy, he refused to accept them until urgently persuaded to do so. The “roving life” which so well suited his nature had procured for him such wealth and power that his own earthly possessions were no doubt equal to those of his brother. Esau was friendly enough toward Jacob, but there was nothing in his manner comparable to the humility of his brother. Jacob addressed Esau as “my lord,” while Esau answered him as “my brother.”
10. I have seen thy face. Esau’s friendly greeting called to mind the divine promise so recently accorded Jacob, and in Esau’s face he could read its gracious fulfillment. These words of Jacob reflect his profound gratitude for the obvious Presence that attended him on his way (see ch. 32:30). How happy the man who recognized Providence at his side day by day (Job 33:26; Ps. 11:7)!
11. My blessing. These words were well chosen and forceful. Can they have been an allusion to the blessing Jacob had snatched from Esau 20 years before? It was most important to Jacob that Esau accept his present, for in so doing Esau, according to the custom of the time, would express his acceptance of that which the present represented—the apology of Jacob. In the Orient a present received by a superior assures to the giver the friendship and assistance of the recipient. If it is rejected, he has everything to fear.
12. Let us go. Esau assumed that Jacob would proceed immediately to Hebron (ch. 35:27), the abode of their father Isaac, and proposed to accompany Jacob on his way. But Jacob politely declined both this offer and the escort later suggested. The latter was unnecessary; the former would mean an intolerably slow pace for Esau. This refusal did not spring from any feeling of distrust; the reasons given were no mere pretext. He needed no military guard, for he knew that he was defended by the hosts of God, and he could not travel as fast as Esau would want to go. Furthermore, he would be free to camp wherever he might choose and remain there until ready to move on. He would thus enjoy complete freedom of action.
14. Until I come. Not that Jacob intended to go directly to Seir, but rather an expression of his desire to see Esau again and to continue on friendly terms with him. Certainly this was not a willful deception for the purpose of getting rid of Esau. Jacob’s destination was not the land of Seir, but Canaan, probably Hebron, where his father Isaac then lived. Thence he may have thought of paying Esau a visit, but whether he ever did so we do not know. The brothers next met, as friends, at their father’s funeral (ch. 35:29).
17. Succoth. Meaning “booths” or “folds” made of twigs woven together. Succoth, in the valley of the Jordan (Joshua 13:27), was later allotted to the tribe of Gad. It has been tentatively identified with the hill Deir‘alla, near the mouth of the river Jabbok.
How long Jacob remained in Succoth is not known. The fact that he erected a “house,” which none of the earlier patriarchs seem to have done, suggests that he must have lived there for several years. His reasons for doing so are likewise unknown to us. Good pasture and a sparse population may have influenced him in this decision. Commissioned by God to return to the land of his fathers (ch. 31:3), Jacob most likely found an early opportunity to visit his aged father. At that time he may also have paid a visit to his brother in Seir, as he had promised.
18. Jacob came to Shalem. In considering shalem a place name the KJV follows the LXX, the Vulgate, and other later versions. The word is, however, an adverb signifying “peacefully” or “safely,” and is equivalent to the phrase “in peace” of ch. 28:21, to which it seems to be an allusion. What Jacob had requested as he made his vow at Bethel 20 years before was now fulfilled (PP 204). He had returned to the land of his nativity.
A city of Shechem. If shalem is taken as the name of a place, then Shechem would refer to the person of v. 19 and ch. 34:2, the son of Hamor the Hivite. But if shalem means “whole,” or “safe and sound,” the clause should be rendered, “Jacob came safely [safe and sound] to the city of Shechem.” It is not necessary to assume that Shechem received its name from Shechem, the son of Hamor, since it was already in existence as a town in Abraham’s time (ch. 12:6). An Egyptian inscription describes a military campaign against the city in the 19th century b.c. It is more likely that Shechem, the son of Hamor, was named after the city.
19. Shechem. Hamor is here referred to as Shechem’s father in anticipation of subsequent events involving both of them. It was on the “parcel of a field” purchased from the Shechemites that Jacob dug the well where the memorable conversation took place between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4:6).
An hundred pieces of money. The qeśitah is a monetary unit mentioned elsewhere only in Joshua 24:32 and Job 42:11. Apparently, it fell into disuse soon after the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, for it is never mentioned in the later books of the Bible. Some commentators have suggested that it may have had the value of ten shekels, but this is only a guess. Its value is unknown.
By this purchase Jacob demonstrated his faith in the promise that Canaan was to be his home. Appropriately, this piece of land later fell to the lot of the descendants of his favorite son, Joseph, whose bones were buried here (Joshua 24:32). According to tradition, this piece of land was on the plain that extends from the southeastern opening of the valley of Shechem. Here Jacob’s well (John 4:6) is still pointed out, and Joseph’s tomb a little to the north of it. The latter structure is of Mohammedan origin, as are the traditions concerning it.
20. An altar. Like his father Abraham, Jacob here erected his own first altar upon entering the land of Canaan (ch. 12:7). It was probably with that former altar in mind that Jacob selected this site.
El-elohe-Israel. It has been suggested that this name means “[dedicated] to the God of Israel,” taking the first two letters of the Hebrew to be the preposition ’al, “to.” Since ancient times, however, it has been interpreted, “The [mighty] God, [is] the God of Israel.” This would set the altar apart as a memorial to the mercy and the prospering hand of the Lord in returning him safely to the land of his fathers after more than 20 years’ absence.
1. Dinah. Dinah, as yet the only daughter of Jacob (PP 204), could not have been more than five or six years old when the family left Haran, since she was not born until after Leah’s sixth son (ch. 30:21). She had possibly reached the age of 14 or 15 when the sordid event described in this chapter took place. It is apparent, therefore, that some eight or more years had passed since Jacob’s return to Canaan (see on ch. 33:17). If the events narrated in chapters 34 to 37 are presented in chronological order, as they seem to be, Dinah cannot have been much older than 15 at the time, because Joseph, who was about the same age as Dinah (ch. 30:21-24), was only 17 when sold into slavery by his brothers (ch. 37:2). The fact that she went out unaccompanied would seem to indicate that she was still regarded at home as a child.
The daughters of the land. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions an old tradition to the effect that the Shechemites were engaged in festivities (Antiquities i. 21. 1), and that Dinah wanted to join the girls of Shechem in their round of pleasure. The language implies the paying of a friendly visit, possibly even that Dinah was in the habit of associating with the girls of Shechem.
There is ever great danger in idle association with people of the world. Dinah was curious to know the ways and customs of the surrounding people. This led to unguarded intimacy with them and ended in her disgrace. Her danger came from seeking to be free from parental control and supervision, and from disregarding the admonition to remain separate from idolaters and their evil habits. “Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33, RSV). The inhabitants of Canaan were to the family of Jacob what the present world is to the Christian. What is called “seeing life” may prove, in many cases, to be flirting with death. Familiarity with sin blunts the senses and increases the danger of temptation.
2. Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite. The Hivites were a Canaanite tribe (see ch. 10:17). From what we know of Canaanite morals, Shechem’s conduct was by no means unusual, and Dinah paid in full the penalty for her unwise independence in associating with wordly youth.
3. Spake kindly unto the damsel. Literally, “he spoke to the heart for the maiden,” that is, he sought to console her for what had happened and to win her affections. It seems that although Dinah had intentionally gone to the city alone, she did not consent to all that happened there. She was now in the house of the Shechem, where she was found when Simeon and Levi sacked the city a few days later (v. 26).
5. Jacob heard. Information concerning Dinah’s experience must have reached her father indirectly, since she herself remained in Shechem’s house (v. 26).
Held his peace. Jacob’s silence was probably due to a combination of sorrow, caution, and perplexity. He had learned to be prudent rather than to act upon impulse. The seriousness of the predicament was certain to affect the interests of the entire household, and called for united counsel and decision. To refuse the marriage proposal would be to incur the illwill of the Shechemites; to accept it would be an open violation of the principle of nonassociation with the heathen (see chs. 24:3, 6; 26:35). Yet Dinah was with Shechem, and how was he to secure her return? Had Jacob foreseen the tragic course of action some of his sons were to pursue upon learning of the affair, he would probably have taken things into his own hands and acted at once. As it was, however, he did better in thus “ruling his spirit” than did his sons when they took the city (Prov. 16:32).
7. The men were grieved. Literally, “made themselves furious.” The second expression, “they were very wroth,” reads literally, “it burned to them greatly.” Their passionate anger was beyond control (cf. 1 Sam. 15:11; 2 Sam. 19:43). How the men must have felt can be understood from the fact that modern Arabs feel more dishonored by the seduction of a sister than by the infidelity of a wife. A man, they say, may divorce his wife, and she is then no longer his, but a sister or daughter ever remains a sister or daughter.
It was therefore proper that they should be grieved and only natural that they should be angry. Their own honor was bound up with that of their sister. They were not so much concerned, however, with the sin committed against God as with the shame that had come upon their family. In this attitude toward the affair lay the source of their great mistake in dealing with it (Gen. 49:7).
Wrought folly. “To work folly” became a standing phrase for crimes involving honor, especially for the sins of the flesh (Deut. 22:21; Judges 20:10; 2 Sam. 13:2; etc.), but for others also (Joshua 7:15).
In Israel. The name Israel is here applied for the first time to Jacob’s household. Later it became the unusual designation for the nation. Some commentators, pointing out that the sons of Jacob were not called either Israel or Israelites until long afterward, think the phrase “in Israel” should be translated “against Israel.” This is grammatically permissible, and would imply that the affair was a crime against Jacob, who had become Israel, “a prince of God.”
8. Hamor communed. Hamor, Shechem’s father, had come to ask Jacob for his daughter (v. 6), but since Jacob’s sons reached home at the same time (v. 7), he spoke to them also. The father and brothers of a maiden were considered her legal guardians (see ch. 24:50).
9. Make ye marriages. The absence of any apology for Shechem’s seduction of Dinah is no indication of her consent, but rather of the low moral standards of the Canaanite prince. He saw in such conduct no particular wrong, at least when his son was willing to marry the girl he had seduced.
10. Dwell with us. Hamor proposed a policy of intermarriage between Jacob’s family and the Shechemites. He was ready, also, to make concessions in regard to the lease of land so that the newcomers might live, move about, and trade freely in the region. Various friendly overtures were made, both by the father as a politician, in favor of intermarriage between the families in general, and by the son as a lover, that he might obtain the girl. To their pagan minds, an exclusive policy in this respect was unthinkable. In the unbelieving spirit of the world they sought to break down what they considered a narrow attitude. The inducements they offered would, under similar circumstances, appeal to them, and all too often such prospects entice the professed people of God into bartering away their sacred scruples.
13. This sons of Jacob. Attractive as the offers of the prince of Shechem were, they were declined by Jacob’s sons, who now took the initiative in discussing their sister’s proposed marriage (see ch. 24:50). To accept the proposals would have been to violate the sacred principles of their call as a family and to sacrifice the promises of God for wordly gain.
15. In this will we consent. Their rejection of Hamor’s proposal was right, to be sure, but their procedure was just as certainly wrong. In plotting murder under the protecting cloak of religious scruples, Jacob’s sons were guilty of hypocrisy and cruelty. Their hypocrisy consisted in professing to accept the proposition of Hamor when they had no intention of doing so, on condition that the Shechemites accept the seal of God’s holy covenant. They knew that if the Shechemites should submit to circumcision it would be a mere form on their part. Their proposal was, finally, conceived in a spirit of cruel revenge.
In later years submission to the rite of circumcision by a non-Jew was considered as indicating acceptance of the Jewish faith and as bringing its recipient under the bond of the covenant, that is, it legally made over a Gentile into a Jew (see Acts 15:5; Gal. 6:12). If acceptance of the sign of the covenant on the part of the Shechemites had meant conversion to the true God, then all objections to intermarriage would of course have disappeared.
20. The men of their city. The condition proposed by Jacob’s sons seemed reasonable to the two suitors, and they were willing to submit forthwith to it. First, however, they went to the gate of Shechem, the place of public assembly, to lay the matter before the men of the town. Their graphic description of the wealth of Jacob and his family, and the advantages which they might anticipate from uniting with them, elicited ready assent to the plan. Generally, the common people can be counted on to follow the suggestions of strong-willed and popular leaders. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. In fact, throughout the history of Israel the people tended to follow the lead of the king. Similarly, when Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed, many Corinthians were likewise converted to Christianity (Acts 18:8).
22. Only herein will the men consent. Prominence was given by Hamor to those considerations that were in early reality secondary, whereas the main point, circumcision, was mentioned incidentally as a trivial condition to which there could be no reasonable objection. The prospect of material gain is ever an effective avenue of approach to worldly-minded men. Any device that might conceivably add to their own wealth appears desirable (see Isa. 56:11). The men of Shechem felt that they were driving a clever bargain, and stood to gain much and exchange for something of no value or importance.
25. On the third day. Inflammation and fever usually set in on the third day. While the Shechemites were thus helpless, two of Dinah’s older brothers set about their bloody work of revenge. This cruel massacre demonstrates how one sin leads on to another, like flames of fire spreading in a dry thicket (Isa. 9:18). Dissipation led to seduction, and seduction to revenge and murder (see James 1:15). The disgrace that had been brought upon one family made widows and orphans of the women and children of an entire city. Indirectly, this narrative testifies to the reliability of Moses as a historian. Himself a Levite, he does not spare the character of his progenitor.
26. Took Dinah. Perhaps Dinah had been detained by Shechem against her own will. On the other hand, his amorous overtures may have led her to remain willingly with him. To free Dinah from her by which it was accomplished were abductor was certainly honorable, but the means by which it was accomplished were despicable in the extreme. Like their ancestors on both sides of the family, the sons of Jacob manifested a strange admixture of religious zeal and carnal passion, of lofty and low craftiness.
30. Ye have troubled me. Jacob administered a stern rebuke for the impulsive deed, stressing the consequences of the crime for himself and his family. Emphasis on this aspect of the affair was calculated to impress his sons with the practical results of rash action. His last word concerning Simeon and Levi (ch. 49:5-7) are evidence of how deeply he abhorred their deed. His fear of reprisal was by no means groundless, and only the mercy of God averted the evil that might have come upon him and his house (ch. 35:5, 6). As for Simeon and Levi, they, like Reuben, forfeited the birthright they might otherwise have enjoyed. Again, warped character stood between men and the possibilities that might otherwise have been theirs.
31. Should he deal with our sister? But Jacob’s sons did not see things as their father did. To them their reprisal seemed fully justified. They not only vindicated themselves but implied that their father was less concerned for his daughter than they had been for her as their sister. The word “harlot,” zanah, signifying prostitution for hire, is here used for the first time in the Bible. This passage shows that prostitution was then existing in Palestine, and that it was considered a dishonorable profession.
This narrative forms a dark chapter in the history of the patriarchs. It teaches that a just cause for anger is not an excuse for rash action. Patience under injustice merits divine approval 1 Peter 2:19, 20; 3:17), for vengeance and retribution belong to God alone (Rom. 12:19). He alone has the wisdom to measure it out with justice and season it with mercy. Under certain circumstances anger may be fully justified, but it is to be directed against the sin rather than against the sinner. It has been stated that the only anger without sin is anger against sin (Eph. 4:26). Anger against one’s fellow men disqualifies the angered person from exercising unbiased judgment (see Matt. 7:1, 2).
1. Go up to Beth-el. Jacob feared that the treacherous massacre of the Shechemites by Simeon and Levi would lead to reprisals on the part of other Canaanite tribes in the vicinity. The aging patriarch seems to have reflected on the horrible deed and its expected consequences without knowing what to do or where to turn. In his perplexity God appeared once more and instructed him as to what course of action he should take to protect his family. How happy Jacob must have been for the assurance that the same divine arm that had shielded him against the anger of Laban and the enmity of Esau would continue to protect and preserve him.
2. Put away the strange gods. The prospect of meeting with God at Bethel led to a thorough work of reform. There was much to be done before Jacob and his household were ready to face the Lord (see Amos 4:12; 1 John 3:3). Out of consideration for his wives Jacob had tolerated the presence of idols in their tents. These strange gods probably included the teraphim Rachel had stolen from her father (Gen. 31:19), the images of his servants, and others which may have come into the possession of his sons with the spoils of Shechem.
Be clean, and change your garments. Since the directives issued by Jacob to the members of his household resemble so closely those later issued at Sinai (Ex. 19:10), it seems that Jacob acted either upon specific instructions from God or upon a procedure he had learned from his father. The outward cleansing of the body and the change to other garments symbolized the moral and spiritual purification of the mind and heart (see Isa. 64:6; 61:10). The service of God is not to be entered upon without due preparation (see Luke 14:28).
3. Let us arise. It seems that Jacob had found residence in the vicinity of Shechem so pleasant and satisfactory that he had delayed paying his vows made to God at Bethel (ch. 28:20-22). The situation resulting from the horrible crime of his sons had once more made him conscious of his need of closer fellowship with God and more careful obedience to His will. The move to Bethel was well calculated to remind him of his past life and to draw him and his family closer to God.
Who answered me. A clear reference to answered prayer. If the experience at Bethel is meant, Jacob must have prayed before he slept that night. If it refers to the experience at the Jabbok, it was the prayer recorded in ch. 32:9-12. The patriarchs were evidently familiar with power of prayer and probably exercised it at fixed times, in full confidence that God hears and answers the petitions of His faithful servants (see ch. 24:12, 26, 52, 63).
4. All their earrings. Not only were the actual idols delivered to Jacob for removal from the household, but also all their jewelry. These things would have been a barrier to acceptance with God at Bethel. Whether the earrings were simply ornaments, or amulets, as some commentators think, is not clear. The wisest procedure for any child of God is to follow the example of Jacob’s wives and servants and put all such ornaments away (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3).
The obedience of the members of Jacob’s household in carrying out his directives is truly commendable. Apparently, they felt that the removal of the strange gods and all distracting ornaments was needed if God was to be sincerely worshiped. Later, an explicit law was given enjoining upon Israel as a nation the prohibition of other gods than Jehovah.
Hid them under the oak. The complete disposal of both images and ornaments was a wise procedure; otherwise they might again have become a source of temptation. For anyone who sincerely loves the Lord, the only wise course to follow is to separate completely from besetting temptations. All modern objects of idolatry, including ornaments worn to the glory of self rather than God, are best not even preserved as keepsakes. In an unexpected moment the temptation to use them again may prove too strong to resist.
Whether the oak under which Abraham once pitched his tent (ch. 12:6, Heb.), the one under whose shade Joshua afterward erected a memorial pillar (Joshua 24:26), the oak of the sorcerers (Judges 9:37, Heb.), and the oak of the pillar at Shechem (Judges 9:6, Heb.) all refer to the same tree, the one under which Jacob buried the images and earrings, is not known. It is not at all improbable, however, that these texts do refer to the same tree, one that must have been a landmark.
7. El-beth-el. The nearby Canaanite city, henceforth known among the Hebrews as Bethel, was then called Luz (see on ch. 28:19). The form in which the name here appears has ever posed a problem to translators and commentators. Some have rendered this passage, he “called the place of God Beth-el.” Others have suggested that the first “El,” God, may not have been in the original text, but represents a copyist’s error. The fact that it is missing in the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac versions lends weight to this possibility. However, in view of the name of El-elohe-Israel, given to the altar erected at Shechem (ch. 33:20), it would not seem altogether strange to find Jacob naming the place of the altar near Luz, “God of Beth-el.” By this he may have meant, “[Dedicated to] the God of Beth-el,” that is, to the One who had appeared to him there on his flight to Haran. In calling Jacob to leave Padan-aram, God had identified Himself to Jacob as “the God of Beth-el” (ch. 31:13). It is most likely, therefore, that Jacob dedicated the altar with this in mind, in token of the fact that he had now reached the spot referred to by God in the command to return.
8. Deborah. Meaning “bee” (see ch. 24:59). She must have been greatly advanced in age. Jacob had been born 20 years after his mother’s marriage and was now more than 100 years old. Since Deborah had left Padan-aram with Rebekah, she was now possibly 150 years of age. However, this would not have been considered extraordinary in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who died at the ages of 175, 180, and 147 years respectively.
That Deborah had become a member of Jacob’s household may be accounted for by supposing that Rebekah had sent her to Haran, or that she had left the home of Isaac after Rebekah’s death.
9. God appeared unto Jacob. This was a visible manifestation in contrast to the audible one at Shechem (v. 1). The word “again,” with the additional clause, “when he came out of Padan-aram,” implies an earlier revelation. This may be a reference to the first appearance of God to Jacob at Bethel in a dream. If so, the word “again” emphasizes the fact that Jacob received two divine manifestations at Bethel, one on his journey to Padan-aram and the second upon his return to the same spot. Support for this view lies in the fact that vs. 11 and 12 repeat the blessing first given to Jacob in his dream at Bethel (ch. 28:13, 14). It is also possible that the appearance of God to him at Peniel is considered by Moses as the first one of the two, which would make two visible revelations of God since his return from Padan-aram. Mention of the change of name from Jacob to Israel on both of these occasions favors the latter view.
10. Called his name Israel. In the previous appearance at Bethel, God had promised Jacob divine protection in the land of his exile and a safe return home, particularly in view of his call to succeed Isaac as progenitor of the chosen people and of the Messiah. This promise God had fulfilled, and Jacob therefore renewed his vow of faithfulness to God. On His part, God confirmed to him the name Israel, already bestowed at Peniel (ch. 32:28), and with it the promise of a numerous seed and possession of the land of Canaan. In form and substances this promise resembles that made to Abraham (ch. 17:6, 8) more than the previous one given Jacob at Bethel (ch. 28:13, 14). Toward the close of his life Jacob alluded to this second manifestation of God at Bethel (ch. 48:3, 4), which the prophet Hosea mentions in connection with his experience at Peniel (Hosea 12:4).
13. God went up. These words clearly suggest that this experience at Bethel was neither a vision nor a strong mental impression of the divine presence, but a real manifestation of God.
14. Jacob set up a pillar. Jacob perpetuated the memory of this divine appearance by erecting a memorial stone. The “pillar” erected some 25 or 30 years earlier had probably fallen down and disappeared. The setting up of pillars seems to have been a favorite practice of Jacob (chs. 28:18; 31:45; 35:20). Upon each “pillar” dedicated to God he either poured out a “drink offering” of wine or anointed it with (olive) oil, or both. According to the law of Moses the drink offering consisted of a fourth part of a hin of wine, equivalent to about 1 qt. (Ex. 29:40).
He poured oil thereon. As upon the previous occasion (Gen. 28:18). Jacob consecrated this stone by anointing it with oil, and confirmed the name of Bethel (v. 15).
16. They journeyed from Beth-el. It is not known how long Jacob remained at Bethel before continuing his journey southward. His departure from Bethel was not in contravention of the command to “dwell” there (v. 1), since that word does not necessarily denote a permanent abode (see Gen. 27:44; Lev. 14:8; 1 Sam. 20:19; etc.). He was to remain there at least long enough to erect the altar and to perform his vow. Having done so, Jacob proceeded to Mamre, where his father then abode.
A little way. Ephrath was apparently another name for Bethlehem (v. 19), which was situated about 15 mi. south of Bethel. The exact meaning of the Hebrew phrase kibrath-ha’ares, “a little way,” literally, “a kibrah of land,” is uncertain. Kibrah is from kabar, which means “to be great,” “to be much,” “to be long.” It is thought, however, that a kibrah was originally a definite Hebrew measure of distance, now of unknown value. It is clear from the LXX and the Vulgate that at the time of their translation the meaning of the phrase was already lost. Based on the meaning of the root word kabar, the RSV, “when they were still some distance from Ephrath,” may come a bit closer than the KJV to the original meaning.
18. Ben-oni. The birth of Benjamin marked the fulfillment of Rachel’s expressed wish in the naming of Joseph, that God would give her another son (see on ch. 30:24). As she lay dying in childbirth she named this son Ben-oni, “son of my pain” or “son of my misfortune.” Under the circumstances, from her point of view, it was a most appropriate name.
Benjamin. Literally, “son of the right hand.” Yamin, “right,” connotes happiness and prosperity, and in Arabic, good fortune as well. A true optimist, Jacob felt that his youngest son should have a name expressing courage and hope, a name that would ever remind him of the joy that came to his heart at the birth of his 12th son rather than his sorrow at the loss of Rachel. The one compensated, in part, for the loss of the other.
Her soul was in departing. The idea that Moses here speaks of some immaterial but conscious part of Rachel, which presumably winged its flight to Paradise at the moment of her death, is without Scriptural foundation. To read such meaning into the text would set it at variance with many other specific statements of Scripture which plainly teach that consciousness ceases completely at death (see Ps. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; etc.). One of the primary meanings of the word nephesh, “soul,” is “life,” as it is translated 119 times (Gen. 9:4, 5; Job 2:4, 6; etc.), or “breath,” as it is rendered in Job 41:21. Genesis 9:5 speaks about the “blood of your lives [nephesh],” which makes it clear that the nephesh has blood, and that the blood is essential to its existence. The nephesh could not, therefore, possibly be an immaterial entity. In Gen. 1:20, 30 the brute creation is said to have a nephesh, “life.” The possession of a nephesh, then, gives man nothing more than all forms of animal life possess. Certainly no one would wish to claim that at death the “souls” of amoebae, mollusks, and apes go flitting their way to heaven. In fact, in Eccl. 3:19 it is specifically stated that both animals and men have the same “breath,” ruach, and that at death the same thing happens to both of them. According to Ps. 146:4 two things happen to a man when he dies:
(1)His “breath,” ruach, leaves his body.
(2)“His thoughts perish.” The text under consideration is a simple statement of the fact that Rachel, in her last moments of consciousness and with her last fleeting breath, gave her son the name Ben-oni.
She died. Rachel had cried to her husband, “Give me children, or else I die” (ch. 30:1). Now both came at once.
19. Ephrath, which is Beth-lehem. Ephrath, or Ephratah (ch. 48:7), was the original name of the town later called Bethlehem. Occasionally both names were used together, as in Micah 5:2. ’Ephratha was a name derived from ’aphar, a root meaning “to be light,” “to be fleet,” “to be fertile.” Ephratha would thus mean “fertility,” and as applied to the region of Bethlehem would imply the fertility of its soil. Bethlehem means “the house of bread.” Thus the two names are closely related in meaning, for in a land of “fertility” it would be only natural to find an abundance of “bread” in the “house.” It is possible that these two names, Ephrath and Bethlehem, are related to two members of early Hebrew families that settled in the vicinity of Hebron and Bethlehem. Caleb, of the tribe of Judah, married Ephrath, and one of their descendants in the fourth generation was named Bethlehem (see 1 Chron. 2:19, 51, 54).
20. Rachel’s grave. The stone “pillar” that Jacob erected over Rachel’s grave remained a famous landmark for centuries. It was still standing in the times of Moses and of Samuel (1 Sam. 10:2). The chapel Kubbet Rachil, “the grave of Rachel,” a very short distance to the north of Bethlehem, may perhaps be located over or near Rachel’s actual grave. The present building, of Moslem construction and but four centuries old, marks the traditional spot generally accepted by Moslems, Christians, and Jews.
21. The tower of Edar. Continuing southward, Jacob halted just beyond Migdal ‘Eder, meaning “tower of the flock.” Watchtowers were commonly erected for the convenience of shepherds in guarding their flocks and for protection against approaching enemies (2 Kings 18:8; 2 Chron. 26:10; 27:4). The site of this particular tower is uncertain.
22. Reuben went. Since Bilhah was the wife of Reuben’s father, this was an act of incest. Under Mosaic law it was punishable by death (Lev. 18:8), and was greatly despised even by pagans (1 Cor. 5:1). Though Bilhah may not have been entirely innocent, Reuben was certainly guilty of a most heinous moral lapse.
Israel heard it. Following these words the Hebrew text has a gap which led the ancient Jewish rabbis to comment, “There is a hiatus in the verse.” The LXX fills in the gap by adding, “and it appeared evil in his sight.” This would seem to represent but inadequately the mingled shame and sorrow, indignation and horror, with which the wickedness of Jacob’s eldest son must have filled him. More bitter and crushing was this last blow than even the death of Rachel or the ravishment of Dinah. Jacob’s silence may be interpreted as the silence of devout resignation. But when the time came to pronounce a blessing on his sons, the dying Jacob felt that Reuben had by his crime forfeited the birthright, his position of temporal and spiritual leadership in the family (Gen. 49:4; 1 Chron. 5:1). The first was given to Judah, the second to Levi.
The sons of Jacob. Called afterward the 12 patriarchs (Acts 7:8), Jacob’s sons became heads of numerous families or tribes, and the people that descended from them are called the 12 tribes (Acts 26:7; James 1:1). In ancient times the number 12 was often taken to mean completeness. Twelve princes came from Ishmael (Gen. 25:16). Twelve spies searched the land of Canaan. Our Lord chose 12 apostles. Although there were at times more or less than 12 tribes actually functioning, Scripture usually recognizes 12, omitting the name now of one, then of another, as can be observed on different occasions (see Deut. 33; Eze. 48; Rev. 7; etc.).
23. The sons of Leah. The children are here arranged according to their respective mothers, not in the order of their birth. Leah’s sons appear first, inasmuch as she was first to give birth (chs. 29:32-35; 30:18-20); then follow the sons of Rachel (chs. 30:22-24; 35:18), the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s maid (ch. 30:4-8), and those of Zilpah (ch. 30:9-13).
26. Born to him in Padan-aram. All except Benjamin were born there. In summary style, Moses considers the interval of time between Jacob’s departure from and return to the paternal abode as his sojourn “in Padan-aram.”
27. Unto Isaac his father. Jacob’s arrival at Mamre constituted the formal return to his father’s house, where he now took up his abode as Isaac’s heir. Mamre was in the immediate vicinity of Hebron, formerly Kirjath-arba (see chs. 13:18; 23:2). Isaac lived 23 years after Jacob’s departure from Haran.
28. The days of Isaac. Jacob was 120 at the death of his father (ch. 25:26). Ten years later, at the age of 130 years, he stood before Pharaoh (ch. 47:9). At that time Joseph had been governor of Egypt for nine years (ch. 45:11). Jacob was therefore 121 years old when Joseph was promoted at the age of 30 (ch. 41:46), and 108 when Joseph was sold at the age of 17 (ch. 37:2). Consequently, Isaac was 168 years of age when Joseph was sold into slavery. Since this tragic event occurred while Jacob was living at Hebron with his aged father (ch. 37:14), Isaac witnessed the grief of Jacob and survived that event for a period of 12 years.
29. Isaac gave up the ghost. A better rendition of the Hebrew would be, “Isaac breathed his last,” as in the RSV (see on ch. 25:8). It is generally agreed that the death of Isaac is mentioned here out of its chronological order, inasmuch as several of the events narrated in succeeding chapters, particularly chs. 37 and 38, must have happened during his lifetime (see on v. 28). His obituary is inserted in anticipation of his actual death, to avoid interrupting the history of Joseph. Isaac’s death apparently came toward the close of Joseph’s three years in prison.
Esau and Jacob buried him. Esau and Jacob had been fully reconciled now for about 23 years. It is not strange therefore to find Esau joining Jacob in the last rites for their honored father. Under similar circumstances Isaac and Ishmael had cooperated in the burial of Abraham (ch. 25:9). Isaac was pious and humbly submissive before God, amiable and generous toward his fellow men. In comparison with that of his son Jacob, his own character was by far the more excellent.
1. The generations of Esau. This chapter consists essentially of a number of name lists dealing with the descendants of Esau and of Seir the Horite, whose families had intermarried. The first verse is the title given by Moses to the collection as a whole.
2. Esau took his wives. The names of Esau’s three wives as here given differ from those of the previous list (chs. 26:34; 28:9). In one instance the father’s name and nationality vary also.
Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite | Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite |
Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite | Adah, daughter Elon the Hittite |
Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth | Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth |
Differences between the two lists are easily accounted for. (1) In harmony with an ancient Oriental custom still followed by the Arabs, a man may be known by different surnames at successive periods of his life, each name being based on some important experience or event. Abram, for instance, became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, Jacob became Israel, and Esau became Edom (chs. 17:5, 15; 35:10; 25:30). As a rule women received new names at marriage, a custom that would account for the differences in the names of two of Esau’s wives. (2) In the case of Judith and Aholibamah, the name of the wife, together with that of her father and his nationality, differs. As a rule childless wives are not mentioned in genealogical lists. It is therefore to be inferred that Judith died childless and Esau married a Hivite woman in her stead (cf. ch. 34:2). Aholibamah means “tent of the high place,” Anah, “answering,” Adah, “ornament.” The name Zibeon may possibly be related to the Hebrew word for hyena, but since he was a Hivite, his name may not have been Semitic at all. For the meanings of the other names, see the references as listed.
4. Adah bare. Five sons (see 1 Chron. 1:35) were born to Esau in Canaan by his three wives named in Gen 36:2, 3. The names are distinctly Semitic and reveal, in part, that Esau still clung in some degree to the religion of his fathers. Eliphaz the name also of one of Job’s friends (Job 2:11; etc.), may mean “strength of God.” Reuel, meaning “friend of God,” was also one of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (Ex. 2:18). The meaning of Jeush, though somewhat obscure, may be “whom Jehovah hastens.” The same name was afterward given by King Rehoboam to one of his sons (2 Chron. 11:19). Jaalam may mean either “whom Jehovah hides” or “he ascends.” Korah means “baldness.” A Levite by this name became the father of a famous family of singers (see Ps. 42-49, title).
6. Esau took his wives. After subduing the Horites and occupying their territory, the land of Seir, Esau moved his family there and made it his permanent home (see Deut. 2:12, 22). It seems that he did so voluntarily, perhaps on the suggestion of Isaac, since he was either already settled there or at least subduing the region when Jacob returned (Gen. 32:3; 33:14-16). Isaac may have planned that Esau inherit his property, and Jacob the title to the Promised Land, as an arrangement for bringing Jacob home from Haran. After Jacob and Esau had settled their differences near the river Jabbok, this arrangement proved mutually satisfactory.
Into the country. Inasmuch as the words “into the country” or “into the land,” without an explanation as to what land or country is meant, seem a bit unusual, it may be that the name “Seir” or “Edom” (cf. Gen. 36:16) has been lost from the text. Some versions read, “into the land of Seir.” On the other hand, the following phrase may express all that Moses intended to say. The two phrases together would then read, “into a land away from his brother Jacob,” as in the RSV.
9. The generations of Esau. Through his sons and grandsons, listed in vs. 10-14, Esau became the father of the Edomite nation, whose home was the hill country of Seir. In the cases of Adah and Bashemath, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded, not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in Aholibamah’s case her three sons were considered the founders.
11. Teman. The name later given to a locality in Idumaea (Jer. 49:20), and borne by one of Job’s friends (Job 2:11).
Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. Nothing is known about these grandsons of Esau through Adah.
12. Timna. Timna was a sister of Lotan the Horite (v. 22); hence, it is apparent that the family of Esau intermarried with the Horites. This may have provided the sons of Esau with a pretext for seizing Horite land and expelling its ancient inhabitants (Deut. 2:12).
Amalek. Ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb on their way out of Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16). Mention of “the country of the Amalekites” in Gen. 14:7 does not necessarily imply their existence in Abraham’s time, but may refer simply to the region inhabited by them when the book of Genesis was written. Balaam’s expression “first of the nations” (Num. 24:20) does not represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe to attack Israel, or perhaps the strongest or most warlike of the desert tribes. Had there been an Amalek—and Amalekites—previous to Edom, considering their important role in opposition to Israel at the time of Moses, we might reasonably expect to find him giving their genealogy, as he does of all others of equal importance to Israel.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, whose home was in the Negeb, in the vicinity of Kadesh (ch. 14:7; Num. 13:29; 14:43, 45). As a nomadic tribe, however, they roamed over the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1 Sam. 15:3, 7; 27:8). One branch of the tribe even penetrated to the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills in what later became the inheritance of Ephraim bore the name “mount of the Amalekites” (Judges 12:15; 5:14). Those who settled in Arabia seem also, in the course of time, to have separated into several branches, for Amalekite hordes sometimes joined the Midianites and the “children of the east” (Judges 6:3; 7:12), and at other times the Ammonites (Judges 3:13), on invasions into the land of Israel. They were defeated at various times by Saul (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:2-9) and by David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam. 8:12), and were finally exterminated by Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:42, 43).
13. Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. Nothing is known concerning these grandsons of Esau.
15. The dukes. The Hebrew word ’aluph, more accurately “prince” or “chief,” was apparently the title taken by Edomite and Horite tribal leaders. Since the related word ’eleph means “thousand,” some scholars have understood ’aluph to be a military title meaning “captain of a thousand” (see Jer. 13:21). In postexilic Hebrew the term came to be applied to Jewish chiefs or governors (Zech. 9:7; 12:5). The names of these “dukes” are not primarily place names as some commentators have suggested. They are, rather, the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau already mentioned in Gen. 36:9-14. In both lists (vs. 9-14 and 15-19) Korah appears as a son of Esau (vs. 14 and 18). In the second list (v. 16) Korah appears also as a grandson of Esau (a son of Eliphaz), but not in the first list (v. 11). Otherwise, the two lists are comparable. Korah’s name is not found in v. 15 of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which had a separate existence after the Babylonian exile, but does appear in the LXX, produced in the 3d century b.c. The fact that Korah is not listed as one of the grandsons of Esau in 1 Chron. 1:36, but is listed as a son (v. 35), confirms the accuracy of the first list of Gen. 36. It appears, therefore, that a copyist’s error has occurred in connection with the Hebrew of Gen. 36:16.
20. The sons of Seir. The original inhabitants of the land, the Horites, were not cave dwellers as some earlier commentators suggested. Until comparatively recent times it was thought that the word translated “Horite” was derived from chor, “cave,” or “hole.” Horite would thus mean “cave man.” In recent years, however, the Hurrians (Horites), known not only to the Bible writers but also to Egyptian (Charu), Hittite (Charri), and Mesopotamian (Churru) scribes, have been rediscovered as a nation. They were scattered far and wide wife over the ancient East during the second millennium b.c. The Mitannian kingdom of the upper Euphrates region was ruled by Hurrians in the time of Moses. Their language has recently been deciphered, and considerable is now known about Hurrian culture and history.
In the early part of the second millennium b.c. Hurrians must have taken possession of Mt. Seir, where they first appear in the Bible as a people (ch. 14:6). Later, they were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deut. 2:12, 22). Seven sons of Seir, the “Horite,” or Hurrian, are listed once as tribal princes, and again as “dukes.” Seir’s grandsons and two granddaughters, Timna (v. 22) and Aholibamah (v. 25), are also named. Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (v. 12), and Aholibamah was the second wife of Esau (see v. 2).
24. Anah that found the mules. Moses supposes that the event here recorded was well known. We, however, know nothing more about the story than this verse tells. The meaning of the word yemin, translated “mules,” is uncertain. This KJV rendering follows an old Jewish tradition. Jerome, however, translated it in the Vulgate as “hot springs,” and some commentators concur in thinking that Moses here refers to the discovery of hot sulphur springs. Three such springs are known in the general region, one in the Wadi Zerqa Ma‘in, another in the Wadi el-Ahsa to the southeast of the Dead Sea, and a third in the Wadi Hamad between Kerak and the Dead Sea.
29. The dukes. This list repeats the names of Seir’s sons, already given in vs. 20, 21. On the title “duke,” see on v. 15.
31. Before there reigned any king. This reference to kings of Israel has been pointed to as evidence of post-Mosaic authorship, or at least as a later interpolation from 1 Chron. 1:43. This conclusion is not necessary. It should be remembered that kings had been promised to Jacob, as Moses knew (Gen. 35:11). This promise had not been fulfilled in the time of Moses, whereas Esau’s house had already attained a high degree of political organization. It is therefore entirely consistent that Moses, in whose time eight kings had already reigned over Edom, make this remark.
The difficulty of finding room for 7 “dukes,” all grandsons of Esau (vs. 15-19), 8 kings (vs. 32-39), and 11 additional “dukes” (vs. 40-43) during the time between Esau and Moses, disappears if it be assumed that the kings and dukes were contemporary with one another. This is supported by a comparison of Ex. 15:15 with Num. 20:14. In the latter, Moses negotiated with a king of Edom for permission to pass through his land, but in the former the “dukes” of Edom are mentioned as trembling on account of the miraculous passage of Israel through the Red Sea. Furthermore, it is not necessary to assume that the 11 “dukes” of vs. 40-43 ruled consecutively. Since it is stated that they were dukes “according to their families, after their places,” all, or at least several of them, may have lived in different places at the same time. It is therefore necessary only to find room for 8 successive kings between Esau and Moses, a period of more than 200 years. This would allow an average of 25 years each as compared with 10 years for the kings of Israel and 17 for those of Judah.
It is apparent that the Edomite monarchy was not hereditary, since in no case did a son succeed his father. It was, rather, elective, with the kings chosen, perhaps, by the “dukes.” This would be similar to the situation in the Holy Roman Empire, where each emperor was elected by the princes and electors of the realm. Of the eight kings named, none is known from other sources. Although some of the names, such as Hadad (1 Kings 11:14), recur later, none refer to the individuals here mentioned. A few of the cities mentioned in connection with the kings can be identified, as follows:
33. Bozrah. A noted city that seems to have been the Edomite capital for a considerable period of time (see Isa. 34:6; 63:1; Jer. 49:13, 22; Amos 1:12). It was on the site of the present village El Buseira about 25 mi. southeast of the Dead Sea.
34. Temani. This region in northern Idumaea, with its city Teman, has not yet been identified. Jerome preserved a tradition to the effect that it lay only 5 mi. from Petra.
37. Rehoboth. Some scholars have identified this with Rehoboth-Ir in Assyria (ch. 10:11), which cannot possibly be correct. Others have located it elsewhere on the Euphrates, inasmuch as the Bible usually designates the Euphrates as “the river.” If this were true, the Edomite king Saul must then have been a foreigner. It is more likely that Rehoboth was either the Idumaean Robotha, whose location is uncertain, or Er Ruheibeh, 23 mi. southwest of Beersheba in a valley near El ‘Arîsh. In the latter case “the river” would refer to the brook on which the city lay.
39. Hadar. Hadar, the last of the eight kings of Edom listed by Moses, was probably the one with whom he dealt to secure permission for passing through his land (Num. 20:14). That Hadar’s wife’s name and the names of his wife’s mother and grandmother are given suggests that Moses was intimately acquainted with him. In contrast to that of the other seven kings, the death of Hadar, recorded in 1 Chron. 1:51, is not mentioned here. This constitutes additional evidence that he was still alive at the time Moses wrote Genesis.
40. The names. Not of localities, as some have suggested, but of individuals, perhaps of local chieftains contemporary with Hadar, in the time of Moses.
1. Jacob dwelt in the land. This statement introduces the period after Isaac’s death. Jacob was now heir to the blessings and promises that accompanied the patriarchal succession.
2. The generations of Jacob. Here opens a new section (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; etc.). Although the name of Jacob alone is mentioned in this title, the history of his family is clearly implied, as the following chapters show. During his lifetime whatever experiences came to members of his family are considered part of his family record.
Joseph, being seventeen. The events about to be described took place some 11 years after Jacob’s return from Haran, when he had reached the age of 108 years (see ch. 30:25 and on ch. 27:1).
With the sons of Bilhah. Joseph was more closely associated with the sons of Bilhah and Zilphah, who stood nearer to him in age, and who were perhaps less haughty than those of Leah. It may be that Bilhah, who had been his mother Rachel’s maid, cared for Joseph after Rachel’s death.
Their evil report. Joseph either reported what he had observed personally or repeated what he had heard about his brothers. This marks the beginning of the bitter hatred that his brothers felt toward him. Joseph was actuated by high ideals, and his sensitive conscience rebelled against the evil deeds of his brothers. His report of these things to Jacob was doubtless with the thought that his father’s influence might lead them to change their ways, lest dishonor come to the family name as it had in the massacre of the Shechemites.
3. Israel loved Joseph. Jacob found particular satisfaction in the companionship of Joseph, whose amiability and ideals made him so different from his brothers. Since Jacob had been 91 years old at the birth of Joseph, and Benjamin was not born till a number of years later, he considered Joseph “the son of his old age.”
A coat of many colours. Jacob’s preferential treatment of Joseph reached a climax in the special coat, or tunic, he made for him. The meaning of the word passim, “of many colors,” is uncertain. It is used also in 2 Sam. 13:18, 19 to describe the dress of Tamar, the daughter of King David. The LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac rendering, “colorfully dyed,” forms the basis of the translation found in most modern Bibles. A painting on the wall of a nobleman’s tomb at Beni Hasan in Egypt, dating from the time of Abraham, depicts a group of Asiatic men, women, and children, of whom some wore nothing but two-colored loincloths, and some, tunics that reached to the knee but left one shoulder bare. Some of these were of plain white material, but others had blue and red designs. The chief’s garment was especially colorful, and is distinguished from the others by a beautiful design woven into the fabric. The tunic Jacob gave to Joseph may have resembled this one. As pointed out here, however, the word passim is of uncertain origin. If, as seems probable, it is the plural of pas, “extremity,” it would refer to the hands and the feet. In Dan. 5:5, 24, pas is the word translated “part.” Accordingly, then, Joseph’s coat, or tunic, would be one with long sleeves, and one which also reached to his feet. Such a garment would not be suitable to wear while working, and was, furthermore, the kind worn by children of noble rank. The RSV reads, “a long robe with sleeves.” The Hebrew grammatical construction suggests the idea that Jacob not only made one such coat for Joseph but “used to make” them for him. In either case this coat excited the suspicion that Jacob intended to pass by this older children and bestow the birthright upon Joseph. Little wonder that his brothers all hated him (PP 209)!
4. They hated him. Jacob’s fondness for Joseph was natural, perhaps, since he saw in him not only the child of his beloved Rachel but also an excellence of character which stood in marked contrast to the notorious lives of some of his other sons. Many parents who find themselves in Jacob’s position, drawn to one child more than to another, at least put forth the effort to conceal the preference, which in their inmost hearts they probably feel is wholly justified. But with inordinate and obvious partiality, Jacob made evident his preference for Rachel’s son by presenting him with an expensive and princely garment. As expected, such a mark of esteem was distasteful to his other sons and, had it not been for Joseph’s fundamentally sound character, might have been injurious to Joseph himself.
5. Joseph dreamed a dream. The coat implied Jacob’s intention of making Rachel’s older son his heir; now, Joseph’s dream was taken as an expression of his own intentions in the matter. They hated him, not only because of the dream, but also for his boldness in telling them about it (v. 8). Though it is not stated that Joseph’s dreams were of God (chs. 20:3-7; 28:12-15), the subsequent history of his life makes it virtually certain that this was so, and that they were not the reflection of any personal ambition on his part. Joseph’s dream shows that Jacob did not limit his pursuits to cattle and sheep raising, but was also engaged in agriculture, as his father Isaac had been before him (ch. 26:12). Such activity had been implied in Isaac’s paternal blessing (ch. 27:28).
9. Another dream. If Joseph’s first dream had pointed only to supremacy over his brothers, the second extended it to the entire family. That Joseph should have related this dream to his brothers, after seeing how they had reacted to the first one, reveals a decided immaturity of judgment. This dream could only intensify their envy and hatred. Joseph, however, seems to have felt a certain satisfaction in telling his dreams and watching his brothers’ envy and anger. Jacob, who was present upon this occasion, administered him a sharp rebuke, partly, perhaps, in surprise, and partly to disavow any collusion on his own part. Though Jacob disapproved of the narration of the dream, he could not avoid being impressed by the way in which it reflected his own thoughts.
Some have questioned the divine origin of the second dream, inasmuch as it seems to have met but partial fulfillment. Neither Rachel nor Leah lived to see the rulership of Joseph’s in Egypt (chs. 35:19; 49:31). It is sufficient to note that even Jacob did not take every detail of the dream thus literally, since Joseph’s mother was already dead at the time (v. 10). Jacob apparently understood the dream as representative of Joseph’s supremacy in a general sense.
12. His brethren went. The sons of Jacob seem to have made rather long annual migrations from one pastureland to another, as is often necessary even today. Shechem lies 60 road mi. north of Hebron, and Dothan (v. 17) another 16 mi. to the northwest of Shechem. Use of the northern pasturelands implies that the season was summer or early fall. The dry season began in April and lasted till October (see v. 24). The reason for pasturing the flocks at Shechem may have been the fact that Jacob’s family owned property there, secured partly by purchase (ch. 33:19) and perhaps partly by conquest (ch. 34:27). Jacob’s sons seem to have felt that they had nothing to fear from the surrounding population (ch. 35:5), who had never taken revenge for their massacre of the Shechemites.
13. I will send thee unto them. Jacob was apparently unaware of how keenly his sons hated Joseph, a fact they had been at pains to hide from him. This is evident not only from the fact that he sent Joseph alone to visit them but also from his reaction to their story of this disappearance. He seems never for a moment to have suspected foul play on their part. Jacob’s concern for his sons was probably due not alone to their long absence but also to fear that fellow countrymen of the Shechemites may have either taken revenge for the massacre or hindered them in the pasturing of their flocks.
17. Let us go to Dothan. Lying about 12 mi. north of Samaria, in the direction of Esdraelon, Dothan was situated on the great caravan road from the north to Egypt. It lay in an oblong plain containing one of the best grazing areas of Canaan, and was therefore well chosen by Jacob’s sons. It still bears its ancient name, Dôtân. In the time of Elisha it was the scene of a great miracle (see 2 Kings 6:13-19).
20. Let us slay him. To men who had slain the males of a whole city, the murder of a single individual could hardly seem a grievous sin. Hatred had developed in their hearts to the point that they were ready to kill their own brother in cold blood. They were far from home and its restraining influences. The “pit” into which they intended to cast his body was one of the cisterns common in Palestine. The story they proposed to tell their father would be entirely credible, for Palestine was a wild country during the second millennium b.c., and lions, bears, and other animals roamed at will (see Judges 14:5; 1 Sam. 17:34).
21. Reuben heard it. Though Reuben had been far from perfect himself (see ch. 35:22), his heart was not so hard as theirs. As the eldest son, he felt a special responsibility for his younger brother, and determined, if possible, to save him from them. The would-be murderers were content, for the moment, to follow Reuben’s suggestion. Weak and vacillating though he was (ch. 49:4), Reuben appears to have been the only one of Joseph’s brothers in whom the natural affection of a brother was not completely lost. Though he lacked the courage to resist openly their stronger wills, he at least made a timid attempt to save Joseph’s life. Reuben’s plan was commendable as far as it went, but it failed because of his lack of determination and vigilance.
24. Cast him into a pit. Adding insult to injury, they stripped Joseph and threw him into a dry cistern nearby. It seems that cistern were often put to such a use (see Jer. 38:6). The thought that he would die a painful death by starvation apparently satisfied their vindictiveness, and they paid no heed to his piteous appeals (ch. 42:21, 22).
25. Sat down to eat. Perhaps with a secret feeling of satisfaction, if not of exultation, and with infinite indifference, the heartless brothers sat down to eat.
A company of Ishmeelites. The word translated “company” in the KJV means a band of travelers, especially of merchants, and may therefore appropriately be translated “caravan.” The Arabs, descending from Ishmael, occupied the desert regions of Arabia east of Egypt and northward in the general direction of Assyria. Biblical and secular records reveal that the Arabs carried on a flourishing trade with Egypt. That some of Ishmael’s descendants had already become a trading people is not surprising, for it was now about 180 years since Ishmael’s birth, and his family had no doubt grown rapidly.
From Gilead. Inasmuch as Dothan lay on a major trade route, it was only natural that caravans should pass by from time to time. The route from Gilead in Transjordan crossed the Jordan in the neighborhood of Beth-shan, at the eastern end of the Esdraelon valley, followed the valley to Jenin, then turned south to cross the Carmel range. Passing through the plain of Dothan, it continued southward by way of Er Ramle and Gaza toward Egypt.
Spicery. The word translated “spicery” is understood by some to be tragacanth gum, which is obtained from bushes of the genus Astragalus. It has also been identified with the dried red blossoms of the naqawa plant, or the resin of the cistus, or rockrose. Whatever the origin of the “spicery,” or gum, it was probably used either as an ingredient of incense or as a cosmetic.
Balm. The Hebrew word translated “balm” probably refers to the gum of the mastic tree and the terebinth.
Myrrh. The meaning of the word thus translated is uncertain. It is usually understood to refer to labdanum, an aromatic gum exuded by the leaves of the cistus, or to what is known today as myrrh. Others think it to be the resinous bark of the mastic tree.
26. Judah said. Judah saw in the appearance of the Ishmaelite caravan a means for permanently disposing of Joseph without taking his life. This would effectively eliminate him from further competition in the contest for the birthright. The brothers reasoned, no doubt, that Joseph had done little to increase the family fortune, and they saw no reason why he should fall heir to the wealth their hands had produced. Judah’s proposal proved to be a most welcome one to all the brothers, who by now, after reflecting upon their original impulse to kill Joseph, found themselves somewhat reluctant to lay their own hands upon him.
28. Merchantmen. The traders are called “Ishmeelites” in vs. 25, 27, and 28, and “Midianites” in vs. 28 and 36. This has been explained by assuming that both groups were represented in the caravan, or that the two names were used synonymously in common parlance. In either case, only one caravan was involved in the transaction (see PP 211).
Twenty pieces of silver. The price paid for Joseph, 20 pieces or shekels of silver, was much less than the average price of a slave. According to Ex. 21:32, this price seems to have been 30 shekels, in all probability the retail price of the Ishmaelites expected to receive for Joseph in Egypt. Naturally, they would pay less for him. Twenty shekels would be approximately 8 oz. (228 gr.) of silver (see on ch. 20:16).
The selling of Joseph was an overt violation of the principle that no man has the right to subject another to involuntary servitude (cf. Lev. 25:39-43). It demonstrates clearly the extent of moral perversion that had taken place in the hearts of Joseph’s brothers. Those who sold Joseph demonstrated thereby that they had utterly lost all natural affection. Joseph’s sale into slavery is the first recorded example in the Bible of such a transaction.
Slave dealers have imitated but seldom surpassed the cruelty of which Joseph’s brothers were guilty, for it was not simply a fellow creature they sold, but their own brother. Nevertheless, divine Providence overruled the evil designs of these calloushearted men. The coming of the caravan at this precise time was Heaven’s appointed means of saving Joseph from their malicious plot on his life, and the saving of his life became, in turn, the means by which their lives were saved (ch. 45:4, 5).
Though Joseph could not know at the time, Providence was guiding his footsteps. How often life’s darkest roads lead to its brightest prospects! Let us ever be willing to follow on wherever God may lead (see Rom. 8:28, 35-39).
29. Reuben returned. The whole transaction took place in Reuben’s absence and without his knowledge. Having persuaded his brothers to consent to cast Joseph alive into a pit, he had left them before Joseph arrived, lest they should discern his intention to restore Joseph to his father (PP 211). The rending of one’s clothing was an ancient custom expressive of grief and sorrow (see Gen. 37:34; 44:13; 2 Sam. 13:31; 2 Kings 18:37; Job 1:20).
30. The child is not. Reuben’s helpless outcry revealed his secret intention to save Joseph. Now he was at a loss to know how he, as the eldest, was to give an account to Jacob for the disappearance of Joseph.
Reuben’s intentions were commendable and his plan well laid; nevertheless he failed. Eventually, however, the day came when Reuben’s brothers were forced to listen to his vivid reproof for this evil hour and its hideous deed (ch. 42:22). Joseph was to be delivered, but not by Reuben. The dross must be purged from his life through suffering (cf. Heb. 2:10) ere he might enjoy the honor for which Heaven destined him. In the providence of God, the cross must often precede the crown, and affliction become the lot of individuals in order that many may benefit and that the gracious purpose of God may finally prevail.
31. They took Joseph’s coat. Though Reuben was beside himself with grief and perplexity, his ruthless and unrelenting brothers were at no loss for a plan. Apparently, however, they had neither the brazen boldness to carry through their scheme in person nor the courage to witness their father’s first outburst of grief. Hence they arranged for another, probably a slave, who knew nothing more of the matter than what he was told, and so could not reveal their dark secret, to carry the bloody coat to Jacob in Hebron.
33. Rent in pieces. Jacob’s sons had not only besmeared the coat with blood but had also doubtless torn it to shreds to make the evidence of Joseph’s misfortune more vivid and their story more credible. All too eloquently the rent coat bore its mute testimony to the fate that had presumably overtaken the youth. The object that once symbolized Jacob’s unwise favoritism for Joseph now came to represent the undoing of both father and son.
34. Mourned for his son. Convinced of Joseph’s death by the undeniable evidence presented, Jacob entered upon a period of mourning, according to the custom of ancient times. His ordinary garments rent, he dressed in sackcloth, the usual garb of mourners (2 Sam. 3:31; Neh. 9:1; Esther 4:1). This was a coarse, thick haircloth, of which corn sacks were also made. In Gen. 42:25 the same word is translated “sack.” In cases of extreme mental distress the “sackcloth” was worn next to the skin (1 Kings 21:27).
35. Rose up to comfort him. When Jacob had mourned for Joseph longer than was customary, and his intense grief seemed unassuaged, his children became concerned. The callous criminals became tender comforters, and the would-be murderers sought to mollify the grief they had cruelly brought upon their father.
It is apparent that Jacob had other daughters besides Dinah, unless daughters-in-law- are meant here (cf. Ruth 1:11, 12). Since Hebrew terms designating family relationships are often used in a more general sense than is true today, it is often uncertain what the words “son,” “daughter,” etc., really mean. It seems clear from Gen. 46:7, however, that these were Jacob’s own “daughters.”
The grave. She’ol. This word is peculiar to Hebrew, is not found in any related Semitic language, and is of unknown origin. It is invariably used to designate the place to which the dead go.
36. The Midianites sold him. On the interchangeable use of the terms “Midianites” and Ishmeelites here and in vs. 25, 27, and 28, see on v. 28.
Unto Potiphar. This name, though long recognized by Egyptologists to be a good Egyptian personal name, was not found until the 1930’s on the monuments, where it appears, in Egyptian, as P’a-di-p’a-Re‘. It means “the one whom [the god] Re‘ has given,” and is comparable to the Hebrew personal names ’Elnathan, “God has given,” and Yonathan, “Jehovah has given.”
An officer of Pharaoh. The Hebrew word translated “officer” is saris, meaning, first of all, “eunuch.” Oriental rulers made use of eunuchs in various important positions, especially as officers in charge of the royal harem. The fact that Potiphar was married has been taken as evidence that the term saris means more than “eunuch” would imply in the strict sense of the word. This may be true, but stands without proof, since even eunuchs may have been married.
Regarding the title “Pharaoh,” see on ch. 12:15.
Captain of the guard. The word translated “guard” is from the Hebrew ṭabbachim. In the singular it means “butcher” or “cook,” and signifies the one who slaughters, cooks, and serves the food (see 1 Sam. 9:23, 24). Here, in the plural, it refers to executioners. Potiphar, the “captain,” was probably chief of the executioners, or perhaps of the bodyguard of Pharaoh.
1. It came to pass. This chapter gives the origin of the three leading families of Judah, the future princely tribe of Israel. It shows also that the sons of Jacob, forgetting the sacred vocation of their race, were in danger of perishing in the sins of Canaan. Had not God in mercy interposed to bring about the removal of the whole house of Jacob to Egypt, the chosen race might have succumbed to the corrupting influence of Canaanite customs. Thus, ch. 38 is an integral part of the early history of Israel.
The phrase “it came to pass” has been taken by many commentators to refer to the story of the sale of Joseph recorded in the preceding chapter. The term, however, is so general that it cannot be limited to a particular event; more likely, it refers to the whole period of Jacob’s history in Palestine. Chronological considerations make it almost necessary to place this narrative at the time Joseph was still in his father’s house.
Being the fourth son of Leah, Judah was certainly not more than 3 years or so older than Joseph, which would make him about 20 years old at the time Joseph was sold (see ch. 37:2 and on ch. 30:24). Between Joseph’s sale as a slave and Jacob’s migration to Egypt lay 22 years (cf. chs. 41:46; 45:6), so that Judah was about 42 years old when the family moved to Egypt. At that time he not only had the three sons, mentioned in ch. 38, but was apparently a grandfather as well, as ch. 46:12 seems to imply. If this be correct, his sons Er, Onan, and Shelah must have been born before Joseph was sold, since they themselves had already reached marriageable ages when the events involving Tamar occurred, and Tamar’s son Pharez had two sons of his own when the family moved to Egypt. These observations oblige us to conclude that some of Jacob’s sons must have married while very young. Judah could not have been more than 14 years old at the birth of his oldest son, Er, nor Er more than 13 at his marriage to Tamar. The birth of Judah’s twin sons by his daughter-in-law Tamar must have taken place within two years after Er’s death. Pharez cannot have been more than 14 years old when Hezron and Hamul were born, apparently also as twins, before the departure from Canaan. Such early marriages are by no means uncommon in certain parts of the Orient even today. In the case of Jacob’s family, they may represent Canaanite influence. The considerations make it virtually certain that Judah was a married man and a father at the time of Joseph’s sale, and that part of the narrative of ch. 38 had already taken place.
A certain Adullamite. Adullam lies about 13 mi. southwest of Bethlehem, at a site now called Tell esh-Sheikh Madhkûr, and approximately the same distance northwest of Hebron, where Jacob lived at the time. For some unknown reason Judah visited Adullam while he was still a youth. Perhaps it was while feeding the flocks of his father in that vicinity that he accidentally made the acquaintance of the Adullamite and remained for a time with him. That Judah did not separate himself permanently from his parental home is clear from the fact that he was with his brothers when Joseph was sold (ch. 37:26), and also when the famine forced them to buy grain in Egypt (ch. 43:3).
5. He was at Chezib. This place is named in order that the descendants of Shelah might know where their forefather was born. Chezib, or Achzib (Joshua 15:44; Micah 1:14), is probably to be identified with the present site Tell el-Beiḍā, which lies southwest of Adullam.
6. Tamar. Probably a Canaanite woman, though of unknown ancestry.
8. Judah said unto Onan. According to custom, Onan, as brother-in-law of Tamar, should have married the childless widow of his deceased brother and raised up a family for him. Onan, however, was loath to accept the responsibilities this involved, since the first-born son would not be his own but would perpetuate the family of the deceased and receive his inheritance. Onan’s conduct betrayed a lack of natural affection for his brother and a covetousness for his possessions and inheritance. Even worse, his conduct was an offense against the divine institution of marriage. This is a sad commentary on the low estate to which Jacob’s sons had fallen.
The custom of levirate marriage (from the Latin levir, “brother-in-law”), first mentioned here in the Bible, also existed, in varying forms, among other nations of antiquity, such as the Hittites. It was incorporated into the Mosaic legislation, with the provision that a brother-in-law might refuse to perform the duty. Such a refusal, however, was considered shameful, as the ceremony to be carried out in that case shows (Deut. 25:5-10). Ruth 4:5-8 records an example of such a refusal.
11. Remain a widow. The sudden death of his two older sons, so soon after their marriage to Tamar, made Judah hesitate to give her the third as a husband. In harmony with a superstition found in the Apocryphal book of Tobit (ch. 3:7-10), he may have thought that either she herself, or marriage to her, had in some way occasioned the deaths of Er and Onan. Therefore he sent her away to her father’s house, with the promise of his youngest son as soon as he had grown up. That Judah never intended to fulfill his promise is clear from his excuse that Shelah might “die also, as his brethren did.”
When Shelah had reached a marriageable age but was not given to her, Tamar determined to secure a child by Judah himself. This was completely in harmony with prevailing Hittite and Assyrian custom. The laws of the Hittites and Assyrians contained the provision that the duty of levirate marriage was to be performed by the father of the deceased if no brother was available.
12. Went up unto his sheepshearers. Judah had become a widower. Inasmuch as festivities were always connected with sheepshearing (see 1 Sam. 25:2-11; 2 Sam. 13:23), Judah could not attend till after the customary time of mourning had passed. Mention is made of his friend Hirah accompanying him, because of the part he was to play in what follows (v. 20).
Timnath. This place was situated in the mountains of Judah, as the expression “went up” shows, and was later allotted to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:57). The site, known today as Tibnah, lies about 4 mi. northeast of Adullam.
14. An open place. The KJV translators did not recognize the Hebrew expression thus rendered as the name of a town. It should read, “the entrance to Enaim,” as in the RSV. Enaim must have been on the road between Adullam and Timnath, but has not yet been identified. It is probably the Enam of Joshua 15:34, mentioned there as being close to Adullam.
18. Thy signet, and thy bracelets. Judah’s “signet” was probably a cylinder seal, carried about his neck by a cord, translated in the KJV as “bracelets.” Rather, the passage should read, “your signet and your cord” (RSV). As literature of the time makes clear, the seal was an object of considerable value, since no business could be transacted without it. The staff may have been ornamented, as became the son of a wealthy cattleman. Asiatic staffs with human heads carved in the handles are mentioned in the list of spoils taken by the Egyptian king Thutmose III in the 15th century b.c., and were also found in the tomb of Tutankhamen, of the 14th century b.c.
21. The harlot. The Hebrew word here translated “harlot” is different from that of v. 15, zanah, an unchaste woman. In verse 21 “harlot” is from qedeshah, “the consecrated one,” or “the devoted one.” Canaanite religious worship, like that of Greece, provided for both male and female prostitutes in great numbers. This profession was respectable among the Canaanites, and therefore in making inquiry for the “harlot” to whom he was to deliver the kid, Hirah used the more respectable term.
23. Let her take it. Feeling that he had done his part, Judah chose to leave his pledge with the unknown girl rather than expose himself to ridicule by making further inquiry, even though the pledge was doubtless of more value than a young goat.
24. Let her be burnt. Judah gave this order by virtue of his authority as head of the family. This probably seemed to him a fortunate opportunity, furthermore, to extricate himself from his obligation to provide her with a husband. Tamar was regarded as the bride of Shelah, and as such was to be punished for a breach of chastity. The Mosaic law provided for stoning under such circumstances (Deut. 22:20-24). Only in the case of a priest’s daughter, or of certain forms of incest, was burning enjoined (Lev. 21:9; 20:14). Judah’s sentence, therefore, was more harsh than later Israelite law required. Whether he acted according to the custom of his time, or on other grounds, cannot be determined. The Code of Hammurabi lists two crimes for which the punishment is burning. Section 110 of the code states that a “devoted one” (see on Gen. 38:21) who opens a wineshop or enters a wineshop for a drink shall be burned alive, and sec. 25 provides that a thief shall be cast into the burning house from which he had attempted to steal property.
25. She sent to her father in law. In passing sentence upon Tamar, Judah had unwittingly condemned himself. His sin, however, consisted not only in giving way to lust, but also in breaking his promise to Tamar (v. 11). This made him personally responsible for the deception she had practiced upon him. His first error had been his own marriage to a Canaanite, in open violation of principle (cf. chs. 24:3; 28:1; 34:14). Furthermore, he certainly knew of the wickedness of his sons; but instead of recognizing the hand of God in their sudden death, he blamed Tamar for it and determined to keep her a childless widow forever.
26. More righteous than I. There was little Judah could do but to admit his guilt. Again, as in the plot against Joseph, he revealed a spirit of fair play and sincerity beneath his sometimes scandalous conduct. His frank confession, his subsequent treatment of Tamar, his success in rearing the sons born to her, and the fact that one of them was honored by a place in the ancestral line of Christ—all clearly point to a thorough reform on his part. A character more excellent than that of his older brothers qualified him for the leadership of the family, and his posterity for leadership in Israel (see ch. 49:3, 4, 8-10).
29. Pharez. The names of Tamar’s children were based on the interesting episode which occurred at their birth. When the twins were born in the reverse order from that in which they first appeared, the midwife addressed the second one reprovingly, saying as it were, “What a breach you have made for yourself,” meaning perhaps, “You really knew how to push yourself to the front.” From this saying of the midwife the boy received the name Pharez, “break.” Although the midwife did not consider him the first-born, he is henceforth always placed before Zarah in the genealogical lists (Gen. 46:12; Num. 26:20; etc.). He became the ancestor of King David Ruth 4:18-22), and through him, of the Messiah (Matt. 1:3-16).
30. Zarah. The twin with the scarlet thread was named Zarah, “rising.”
1. Down to Egypt. Inasmuch as Moses designates the kings of Egypt only by the general title “Pharaoh” (see on ch. 12:15), it is most difficult to correlate Biblical statements relative to Egyptian history with known dates and events of secular history.
Among Biblical scholars who believe in the historicity of Joseph there is general agreement that his activities in Egypt occurred during the first half of the second millennium b.c. Many believe that he held office under one of the Hyksos kings.
Under the illustrious kings of the powerful Twelfth Dynasty (1991 to about 1780 b.c.), Egyptian art, architecture, and literature flourished. The national economy was sound. Egypt exerted a strong influence in Western Asia to the north and in Nubia to the south, and carried on an extensive trade with various foreign countries. The two succeeding dynasties were weak, and lost ground before advancing Asiatic armies, whose leaders called themselves Heqa’-cha’śut, “rulers of foreign countries.” The Greek transliteration of this title is rendered in English as Hyksos. Josephus explains the name as meaning “Shepherd Kings,” but this is doubtful. The names of the various Hyksos rulers indicate that most of them were Semitic, though a few bore Indo-European names. Some of these kings were able to extend their power over most of Egypt, whereas others found it necessary to tolerate local rulers in various parts of the country.
Since Greek times the Hyksos rulers have been traditionally divided into two dynasties, the 15th and 16th, which ruled Egypt from their capital Avaris, in the Delta, from about 1730 to 1580 b.c. During the latter part of this period the local Egyptian rulers of Thebes gradually extended their influence over the whole of Egypt, pushing the Hyksos northward. They finally conquered Avaris and drove the Hyksos from the country. The latter held out for another three years in the stronghold of Sharuhen in southern Palestine, but were again defeated and finally disappeared to the north. Thus ended the Second Intermediate Period, the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasty, which had lasted some 200 years. The native rulers of Egypt who waged the war of liberation against the Hyksos, Kamose, and Sekenenre, belonged to the Seventeenth Dynasty. Their successors, the powerful kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, founded the Empire, or New Kingdom, during which the Exodus occurred.
The Asiatic Hyksos were intensely hated by the Egyptians, who, upon their return to power, destroyed all Hyksos monuments and records, with the result that very little is known about them. The names of their kings, a few sarcastic remarks about them, and a few brief episodes from the war of liberation are all that remain. Evidence for placing Joseph in the Hyksos period is, in brief, as follows:
1.Bible chronology. If we reckon back to the Exodus from the 4th year of Solomon (1 Kings 6:1)—which is located by the chronology of the kings based on the generally accepted date of 853 b.c. for Ahab’s death—thence 215 years before the Exodus to Jacob’s entry into Egypt (see pp. 184, 186), when Joseph was 39 (see on Gen. 27:1), that will place Joseph near the middle of the Hyksos period.
2.The horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos, and were unknown in the land prior to their invasion. Since horses and chariots are repeatedly mentioned in the Joseph narrative (chs. 41:43; 46:29; 47:17), his activities in Egypt cannot have taken place before the time of Hyksos supremacy.
3.The statement that Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh’s bodyguard, was “an Egyptian” (ch. 39:1) would have significance only at a time when it was the exception to find native Egyptians occupying high office.
4.It is more likely that a Semite like Joseph would be advanced to the high position of prime minister under the Hyksos kings, of whom a majority were Semites, than under a native Egyptian monarch.
5.Avaris, the residence of the Hyksos kings, lay in the northeastern section of the Nile Delta, near the land of Goshen. This fact agrees with inferences in the Joseph narrative to the effect that the capital was not far from where Jacob and his sons settled (ch. 45:10). Avaris and Goshen are only about 25 mi. apart.
6.The statement that a new king arose who did not know Joseph (Ex. 1:8) can be explained best by assuming that reference is made to a Pharaoh of the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Dynasty, who had expelled the Hyksos and naturally hated all who had received favors from them.
7.The silence of all Egyptian records regarding Joseph would be most significant if Joseph lived in the time of Hyksos supremacy, for their records were systematically destroyed.
8.Egyptian records of the pre-Hyksos period show the existence of private enterprise and private ownership of land and livestock. All this changed during the time of the Second Intermediate Period, and we find that when the native Egyptians regained power, lands and cattle, with the exception of ecclesiastical property, were considered possessions of the crown. The explanation for this change is found in Gen. 47:18-26.
Arguments that seem to oppose placing Joseph’s term as prime minister in the time of the Hyksos will be dealt with in the comments that follow.
An Egyptian. Resuming the thread of the Joseph narrative, interrupted by insertion of the incident involving Judah and Tamar, Moses repeats in essence what he had stated in ch. 37:36. The only important addition is the statement that Potiphar was an Egyptian. This seems to suggest that Joseph arrived in Egypt at a time when it was unusual to find an Egyptian in a responsible government position.
2. The Lord was with Joseph. Though Joseph found himself in a foreign land, abased from the position of favored son in a wealthy home to the social status of a slave, Jehovah was still at his side to bless and to prosper the work of his hands. It is God’s design that men of the world, attracted by the diligence, care, and energy manifested by his faithful servants on earth, shall thereby learn to Him. Potiphar’s confidence in Joseph increased, as he observed the blessings of Joseph’s God upon his property in the house and in the field, with the result that he eventually left to him the management of all his personal affairs.
Obviously, Joseph was attentive, diligent, and conscientious in the performance of his household duties, as well as faithful and devoted to the interests of his master. Success seldom comes to the negligent, the idle, or the unprincipled. Though he was conscious that Jehovah was watching him (v. 9; ch. 45:5), it must have been a source of satisfaction to Joseph to know that his faithful service was appreciated by his earthly master.
6. A goodly person, and well favoured. Literally, “handsome in stature and handsome in appearance,” or, “handsome and good-looking” (RSV). This, Joseph must have inherited from his mother, Rachel, of whom the very same words are used in the Hebrew (see ch. 29:17; PP 209). The fact is no doubt mentioned here in anticipation of the episode which follows, and to which it forms an introduction.
7. His master’s wife. In this moment of crisis the personal integrity of Joseph stands forth in sharp contrast to that of his brothers. What would Reuben (ch. 35:22) or Judah (ch. 38:16) have done under the circumstances? Little wonder that Jacob favored Joseph, and that Potiphar felt such confidence in him. This confidence in him reinforced his serene purpose to be true to God, and made even more desirable to him his lofty ideals of personal honor and integrity.
10. She spake to Joseph day by day. Joseph’s character stood firm under persistent attack. Wisely, he refused even to be in her company. In thus refusing, Joseph revealed sincerity, wisdom, and determination in the way of right. The stronger the temptation, the more resolute he became in resisting it.
12. His garment. It is not certain what kind of garment Joseph wore. The Hebrew word, beged, is a general term for clothing, and may even mean a blanket. Most commentators have thought of it as a long gown thrown over the shoulders. In ancient Egyptian reliefs and paintings, however, men rarely appear in long garments. The standard dress of a man, from king to slave, was a loincloth. In the case of royalty, it was of fine material, immaculately clean, and starched. For all others it was of less value, its quality being determined by social standing. Overseers are occasionally pictured with a white piece of cloth hanging from their shoulders and wound around the body. Perhaps it was this that Potiphar’s wife snatched from Joseph as he fled from the house.
14. He hath brought in. It is interesting to note that in telling the other servants of the affair Potiphar’s wife spoke of her husband simply by the pronoun “he.” This shows how little respect she had for him, and accentuates her already vulgar and wanton character.
It seems ever to have been a weakness of human nature to blame others for one’s own misdeeds. Thus it was with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:12, 13). This is but a reflection of the spirit of the “accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10), who seeks to justify himself by maligning those who serve the Lord (Zech. 3:1). His ultimate purpose is, of course, to prove God unfair in His dealings with created beings (see Job 1:8-11; 2:1-5). Stressing the defects of others, whether real or imaginary, is supposed to make the speaker appear better by contrast.
An Hebrew. That is, a descendant of Eber (see chs. 10:21; 14:13). It was generally thus that the descendants of Jacob referred to themselves as a people, and that others referred to them (see Gen. 39:17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32; Ex. 1:15, 16, 19; 2:6; etc.). Originally, a “Jew” was a descendant of Judah, but after the captivity the term lost its strictly tribal application.
To mock us. In Gen. 26:8 the same Hebrew expression is translated “sporting.” It would seem that here, as with Isaac and Rebekah, it must refer to conduct proper only between husband and wife (see also on ch. 21:9).
15. Left his garment. Potiphar’s wife was careful not to state that Joseph had left his garment in her hand, since that would have revealed her duplicity.
20. Put him into the prison. In repeating her tale to her husband, Potiphar’s wife indirectly blamed him for the supposed affront by referring to Joseph as “the Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us” (v. 17). Potiphar’s action in confining Joseph with political offenders may be considered extreme leniency in view of punishment customarily administered for the crime of which he stood accused. In later times the penalty for an attempt at adultery was a thousand blows upon the soles of the feet, and for the rape of a freewoman it was even more severe (Diodorus i. 78). Potiphar’s lenience no doubt reflected his confidence in Joseph’s integrity, and in contrast, very little respect for his wife’s account of the episode. Nevertheless Joseph’s punishment seems to have been severe at first, for more happened to him than the Genesis narrative implies. According to Ps. 105:18, his “feet” were “hurt with fetters,” and “he was laid in iron.”
There is an Egyptian papyrus, now in the British Museum, that relates a “story of the two brothers” superficially resembling the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Numerous scholars have taken it to be the original of the story of Joseph’s experience, and although the two are similar in some respects, the differences far outweigh the similarities. The Egyptian story, furthermore, has a mythological setting, and is of later origin than the book of Genesis by at least 250 years.
21. The Lord was with Joseph. The same Providence that had attended Joseph in the house of Potiphar followed him to prison and brought comfort to him in his new affliction. Moses attributes the speedy favor he found in the sight of the keeper to the help of God. The irksomeness of his confinement must have been mitigated considerably by the jailer’s growing trust and confidence in him, since the blessing of the Lord attended all things committed to his care. Although Joseph had been treated unjustly, he made the best of the circumstances in which he found himself. By discharging his duties in a cheerful, courteous, and sympathetic spirit he gained the confidence of the one in authority, and at the same time prepared the way for his own eventual release.
1. The butler. Literally, “the cup-bearer,” an important court official. He was responsible personally for tasting everything the king drank, as a guarantee that it was free from poison and other harmful ingredients.
The baker. The officer who supervised (v. 2) the preparation of the king’s food and was responsible for the purity of everything that came to the royal table.
Had offended. Some incident, apparently, had aroused Pharaoh’s suspicion that either or both of the two high officials were involved in an attempt to poison him. That one of the two was later restored to office and the other executed indicates that investigation had convinced the king of the innocence of the one and the guilt of the other.
The Judicial Papyrus of Turin offers a most interesting parallel to the story of the butler and the baker who had fallen from royal favor. It contains the record of the trial of a number of high-ranking officials accused of conspiracy against the life of Ramses III, and is dated about 1164 b.c. Unfortunately, the papyrus is not complete, and we do not know the means employed by the conspirators against the life of the king, nor do we know whether the plot was successful. The parts of the document that have been preserved, however, provide information on how such cases were handled in ancient Egypt. The defendants in this trial were several butlers, scribes, and other high officials. Some were sentenced to be executed, others were found guilty but were allowed to take their own life, some were punished by cutting off their noses, and ears, and one was only rebuked and received no punishment. A number of judicial officers also were prosecuted for carousing with some of the defendants during the period of investigation.
3. Put them in ward. These two high officials were committed to the custody of the commander of the royal bodyguard. This officer was Potiphar, the master and owner of Joseph, according to chs. 37:36 and 39:1. Potiphar placed them in the same state prison in which Joseph was held, and since their cases were still under investigation, and they themselves were high officers of state, he charged Joseph to wait upon them and act as their attendant.
4. They continued a season in ward. Literally, “and they were in custody for days.” This expression is indefinite and gives no clue as to the time these men spent in prison before their cases were settled and the event recorded in the following verses occurred.
5. They dreamed. The striking similarity of their dreams convinced the two men that the dreams were in some way related to their fate, but just how they knew not. Knowing, no doubt, that their cases might be decided any day, and being deprived in prison of professional dream interpreters, they were obviously anxious the next morning when Joseph entered their room.
8. Do not interpretations belong to God? Thinking of his own two dreams, and realizing that God was still with him, Joseph sought to help the two dejected men in their perplexity. This desire to help others later proved to be the key to his own release from prison. Bearing his own unearned misfortunes with cheerful resignation and admirable fortitude, Joseph, by his friendly nature, was led to sympathize with other unfortunates, who lacked the inner strength that bouyed him up. It was not out of curiosity but with an earnest desire to assist those in need that Joseph offered the two men his assistance. At the same time he pointed them to God, his own source of strength and consolation.
9. A vine was before me. The duties of the royal cupbearer were unmistakably represented. To conclude that Pharaoh drank only fresh grape juice, however, is entirely unwarranted. The cultivation of the vine and the making and drinking of wine by Egyptians are attested by ancient Egyptian records, statements by Herodotus (ii. 77) and Plutarch (De Isis et Osiris 6) to the contrary notwithstanding.
13. Lift up thine head. This expression, as in 2 Kings 25:27, means release from prison and restoration to responsibility and honor. That it may also have an adverse meaning is evident from v. 19.
14. Think on me. Joseph appealed his case to Pharaoh. He had been abducted from the land of the Hebrews (see ch. 39:14), which was the reason he was now in Egypt, and had been imprisoned, though innocent of any crime. If Joseph lived in Egypt under the Hyksos, as the evidence seems to indicate, the cupbearer was probably not an Egyptian. Joseph might therefore more reasonably expect help from him than if he had been an Egyptian. Investigation of Joseph’s case, if ordered by the king, would involve Joseph’s master, a native Egyptian (ch. 39:1).
15. The dungeon. Here, a contemptuous term for the prison. In ancient times pits, cisterns, and cesspools, when empty, were used for the incarceration of offenders (see Jer. 38:6; Zech. 9:11). That the word “dungeon” is here a synonym for prison is evident from Gen. 40:14, in which the place of Joseph’s confinement is called a “house.”
16. Three white baskets. Encouraged by Joseph’s favorable interpretation of the butler’s dream, the chief baker told his. The picture described by the baker is again thoroughly Egyptian. Reliefs, wall paintings, and figurines found in ancient Egyptian tombs show that such things as baskets and pottery vessels were often carried on the head. As everywhere in the Orient, birds of prey would naturally try to snatch something from the uppermost basket. The baker pointed out the resemblance of his dream to that of the cupbearer by his words, “I also.” The similarity was not confined to the numbers in the two dreams—three branches of the vine and three baskets of bread—but was also evident from the fact that their official duties at court were represented.
19. Lift up thy head. The expression “lift up thy head” was used in v. 13 in a favorable sense. However, the additional phrase here, “from off thee,” signified its unfavorable meaning. It must refer to execution by beheading, after which the culprit’s body would be displayed on a tree as a warning to other would-be conspirators. Egyptian records testify to the practice of capital punishment by decapitation, after which bodies were sometimes exhibited as a means of deterring others from the same crime. On the other hand, execution by hanging or strangulation is unattested in ancient records.
20. It came to pass. The fulfillment of Joseph’s predictions proved the dreams to have been of divine origin, and Joseph as possessing the gift of interpretation (see Jer. 28:9). Pharaoh “lifted up the head” of each of the prisoners, but in very different ways (vs. 13, 19).
23. Forgat him. The cupbearer apparently promised Joseph he would speak on his behalf (ch. 41:9). When the ensuing weeks and months brought no evidence of the butler’s gratitude, Joseph probably began to wonder whether he was to pine away his whole life in prison. At the same time, however, the fulfillment of the dreams of the court officers may have encouraged him to believe that in some way his own dreams would come true (ch. 37:5-9). But, for the moment, the ingratitude of the cupbearer must have been a painful experience to Joseph, probably as cruel and unkind a blow as any he had yet received. The experience is a reminder in reverse of the value of expressing our appreciation for the kindness and assistance of others. This chief cupbearer stands condemned to perpetual dishonor. How often high station makes men too proud to notice their humble friends of former days.
1. He stood by the river. The word translated “river,” ye’or, is used in the Bible for the Nile only, with the exception of Dan. 12:5-7, where it is employed for the Tigris. It is borrowed from the Egyptian ’iru. This word had been ’itru before the time of Moses, but with the Eighteenth Dynasty it became ’iru. Since the Hebrew word is derived from this later form, it is accepted by some as an evidence that Genesis was written later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, which began in 1580 b.c.
2. They fed in a meadow. The Hebrew word ’achu translated “meadow,” is also borrowed from the Egyptian. This is derived from the Egyptian ’ichi and means “reed” or “grass.” It is used only in Gen. 41:2, 18 and Job 8:11, and provides one of the arguments in favor of attributing both books, Genesis and Job, to the same author.
3. Seven other kine. The seven lean cows were unparalleled for ugliness (Gen. 41:19). More than that, they were lean, literally, “thin in flesh.”
6. The east wind. This east wind, blowing in from the Arabian Desert and extremely hot, withers the crops and scorches the land. The Arabs differentiate between two kinds of east wind: (1) the chamsin, which may blow for as long as 50 days in the spring, (2) the samum, which comes at irregular times. Although it blows usually only for a short time, sometimes only for a few hours, the samum has the characteristics of a severe storm and can be very destructive in its effects upon men, animals, and plants.
7. It was a dream. The dreams seemed real. Only when he awoke did Pharaoh realize he had been dreaming. Though there had been two distinct dreams, they are considered as one (vs. 8, 15, 25, 32) because of their similarity and because of the obvious fact that they referred to one and the same event. The essential message was repeated for emphasis (v. 32).
8. Magicians. Outside the Pentateuch this word, from charṭummim, is used only in Daniel 1:20; 2:2. It is derived from an Egyptian word meaning “to pronounce a magic spell,” “to pronounce a name in magic,” and designating the priests as masters of magic. These men occupied themselves with the sacred arts and sciences of the Egyptians, the hieroglyphic writings, astronomy and astrology, and interpretation of dreams, the foretelling of events, with magic and conjuring, and were guardians of the occult arts. In short, they were the wise men of the nation. Inasmuch as the Nile, whence the lean as well as the fat cows ascended, was regarded by the Egyptians as the source of all life and fertility, these wise men were puzzled as to the meaning of the dreams and could think of no interpretation that would be likely to satisfy the king. Unlike Nebuchadnezzar upon a later occasion, Pharaoh remembered his dreams, but the Egyptian wise men proved no more successful in spite of their obvious advantage in this respect (Dan. 2:4, 7). That they were unable to explain Pharaoh’s dreams, clothed in the symbolic language of the time, was no doubt surprising to them as well as to the king; but “the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God,” and those to whom the Spirit of God reveals them (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). The wisdom of God excels, and will therefore ever confound, that of the world.
14. Shaved himself. Ancient Egyptian pictures and reliefs show Asiatics wearing long hair and beards, whereas the Egyptians shaved themselves. The Egyptian story of Sinuhe provides an interesting parallel to this episode in the life of Joseph, so thoroughly Egyptian itself. In this story a courtier who lived some 300 years before Joseph’s time tells of his return to the court of Pharaoh after a long period of exile in Canaan. He says, “I was shaved, and my hair was combed. … I was clad in fine linen and anointed with choice oil.”
16. It is not in me. In all modesty Joseph pointed Pharaoh away from himself to the God of heaven, as he had the two prisoners two years earlier (ch. 40:8).
An answer of peace. Court custom required that the dreams of the king be given a favorable meaning. Joseph had lived long enough in Egypt and had associated enough with high officials to know well the customary formula of speech to be used in the presence of the king.
17. My dream. The two dreams are related in essentially the same words as in vs. 1-7. However, Moses avoids monotony by adding a few words in one place and using synonyms in others.
25. God hath shewed Pharaoh. Joseph declared first of all that the two dreams had the same meaning, and pointed to their Author, God, who thereby sought to warn Pharaoh and his subjects of events to come. The number seven, which played so prominent a role in the dreams, pointed to two periods of seven years each. The fat cows and the full ears represented seven abundant harvests; the lean ones, seven barren years. The latter would follow the former over the whole land of Egypt, so that the years of famine would leave no trace of the seven fruitful years. Joseph added that the repetition of the dream was to emphasize the certainty of the events indicated and the urgency of taking measures to meet the emergency. Joseph’s confidence in his interpretation, which looked 14 years into the future, in contrast with the perplexity of the Egyptian wise men, could not fail to impress the king.
33. Look out a man. Joseph followed up his interpretation by the advice that Pharaoh should appoint a man as minister of food over the whole land, and a staff of officers to carry out his instructions. Joseph advised also that during the seven years of superabundance a fifth part of the harvest should be levied, as a tax, and stored up throughout the country.
34. The fifth part. That only a fifth of the harvest should be collected each year implies that even in the lean years the land was to produce something. The fertility of Egypt has always been dependent upon the yearly inundation of the land by the Nile, since rain is practically unknown.
Before the construction of the Aswân Dam and levees along the Nile in the last century to regulate the inundation, dikes were built to control a normal rise in the river. This was 25 or 26 ft. above the low level of the river in the dry season at Aswân. If the inundation reached 27 ft., dikes were washed away; if it reached 30 ft., villages were destroyed and lives lost. On the other hand, an inundation of but 23 ft. would not bring water to fields lying 2 mi. from the river, and would result in partial drought. Of the inundation of the Nile, Pliny wrote: “The ordinary height [of the inundation] is 16 cubits. When the waters are lower, they do not overflow the whole ground; when higher, it takes a long time for them to recede. In the first case the ground is not saturated; in the second, the waters are detained so long on the ground that seed-time is lost. The administration takes cognizance of both. At a height of only 12 cubits a famine is the consequence. Even at 13 cubits hunger prevails; 14 cubits produces general rejoicing; 15, perfect security; and 16, all the luxuries of life” (Natural History, v. 10).
Since Egypt produced more grain in normal years than it needed for home consumption, and was therefore able to export great quantities, the collection of 20 per cent of the crop in plentiful years would work no hardship and would, at the same time, add up to an enormous amount of grain. It would not be wise to require too great an amount; otherwise the good will and cooperation of the farmers and landlords would be lost. With abundant harvests they could easily pay this increase in taxes and not feel it to be oppressive.
38. A man in whom the Spirit of God is. Joseph’s counsel was so sound and pleasing to Pharaoh and his counselors that the king proposed the appointment of Joseph as minister of food, and granted him emergency powers. If this Pharaoh was a Semitic Hyksos, as is likely, his evaluation of Joseph as “a man in whom the Spirit of God [’Elohim] is” can easily be understood. It is not clear, however, in what sense Pharaoh understood the word ’Elohim, the plural of ’Eloah. It is used by Bible writers to designate both the true God and heathen deities. Whether the king referred to the ’Elohim of Joseph (vs. 16, 25, 28, 32) as one God or to several of his own deities is uncertain, although Joseph had used the singular verb form in describing God’s activities. Since he was certainly an idolater and a polytheist, Pharaoh may have conceived that Joseph was talking of “gods,” and if so, Pharaoh’s statement would be translated, “a man in whom the spirit of the gods is.”
40. Be ruled. The Hebrew expression thus translated was long given various strange explanations by commentators, until the suggestion was made that an Egyptian expression might form the basis of the text. If so, the statement would read, literally, “According to your word [or mouth] all my people shall kiss.” In colloquial Egyptian, however, the phrase “to kiss” also means “to eat.” Moses’ first readers, all of whom grew up in Egypt, would certainly have understood what was meant. If this was Moses’ meaning, it would constitute additional evidence that Moses, a man educated in Egypt, wrote the book of Genesis. If, on the other hand, the expression is Hebrew, the word translated “be ruled,” from a root meaning “to cling to,” “to hang upon,” should be rendered “be obedient.”
41. I have set thee. After considering the appointment for some time the king announced his decision to elevate Joseph to the highest office under the crown, and proceeded with the inaugural ceremony. First, there was a royal proclamation declaring Joseph to be viceroy over all Egypt.
42. Took off his ring. From numerous tomb reliefs of high Egyptian officials depicting their own installation in office, we have pictures that agree very well with the short report of Joseph’s installation. These show the king, usually standing behind the “window of appearance” of his palace, handing out the insignia of dignity. The seal ring given Joseph certainly contained a stone in the form of a scarab, with the king’s name engraved on it, and was used for affixing the royal seal to documents.
Vestures of fine linen. He was provided a wardrobe of fine linen such as the king and priests wore. The Egyptian story of Sinuhe (see on v. 14) also mentions “fine linen” in which the hero of the story was dressed upon his return to the Egyptian court.
Gold chain. Pictures representing the installation of high officers regularly show a gold collar placed around the neck of the official. Some of these “collars” have been preserved and are to be found in museums. They are beautiful specimens of art, made of gold and beads of semiprecious stones. Hanging from the collar in front is an inscription giving the king’s names and titles.
43. The second chariot. This statement is appropriate to the time of the Hyksos, who introduced the horse and chariot into Egypt (see on ch. 39:1).
Bow the knee. The call of the heralds preceding the chariot of Joseph when he drove through the country or in official processions. The Heb. ’abrek, “bow the knee,” is the transliteration of an Egyptian phrase that has been interpreted in various ways. The most plausible explanation, first given by the Egyptologist Brugsch, sees back of it the Egyptian verb berek, “to praise,” or “to do homage.” The Heb. ’abrek would therefore be a faithful rendering of the Egyptian imperative i’a berek, “Praise!” or, “Do homage!” The suggested alternate reading, “tender father,” is certainly incorrect.
45. Zaphnath-paaneah. The name given Joseph by Pharaoh was long recognized as Egyptian, but its meaning was not known. However, the name has been discovered in an inscription of the later, Bubastid period (9th century b.c.), and was written in Egyptian Djed-pa-netjer-iuf-ankh, meaning, “The god speaks that he may live.” Joseph’s name must have referred to contemporary events, signifying that God had spoken through Pharaoh’s dream and Joseph’s interpretation and counsel, to preserve the lives of the king, of Joseph, and of all others as well.
Asenath. Joseph received not only an Egyptian name but also an Egyptian wife, a woman from one of the most eminent priestly families. Pharaoh apparently sought to increase Joseph’s honor and reputation by this marriage, as is evident from the fact that some of the kings themselves took their wives from priestly families.
Asenath means, “belonging to [the goddess] Neith.” Her father’s name is identical to that of Joseph’s former master (see on ch. 37:36), though a slight difference exists in the Hebrew transliteration of the names. However, the fact that both names are the same does not imply that the persons bearing them were identical also. Joseph’s former master was commander of the royal bodyguard, whereas his father-in-law was high priest of On, the city of the great sun temple, which was a few miles from Memphis on the eastern bank of the Nile. The Greeks later called this city Heliopolis. The sun temple of On and its priesthood wielded a strong influence on Egyptian religious life for many centuries, until the worship of Amen and later of Amen-Re of Thebes overshadowed the sun worship of Heliopolis, in the 15th and succeeding centuries. Joseph’s social position was tremendously strengthened by his marriage to a daughter of one of Egypt’s first families.
The marriage of Joseph to an Egyptian woman seems not to have weakened his allegiance to the God of his fathers. His sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were apparently brought up in the Hebrew religion, since they were made heads of two tribes of Israel, and in this respect achieved equality with their uncles, the brothers of Joseph. Joseph’s strong loyalty to his God may even have been the means of converting his Egyptian wife. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the hand of God by which he had been so highly exalted after deep humiliation, also preserved him in his lofty position of honor from sinking into the heathenism of Egypt.
What a change God had brought about in the life of Joseph! His fetters were exchanged for a chain of gold, the prisoner’s rags for fine linen, his cell for a chariot, and his jail for a palace. Potiphar’s slave had become his lord, and the clank of chains had given way to the exclamation, “Do homage!” Humility goes before honor; servitude and suffering were the stepping-stones to authority. How well was God’s faithful servant repaid for his loyalty and patience!
46. Thirty years old. Since Joseph was 17 years old when sold into Egypt (ch. 37:2), and was now 30, he must have spent 13 years in servitude.
47. The earth brought forth. Joseph’s prediction was accurately fulfilled. The grain grew by “handfuls,” or “bundles,” and Joseph gathered 20 per cent of it into granaries throughout the land. The quantity of grain flowing into the royal storehouses was so enormous that it soon exceeded all facilities for recording the amount. Available scribes may have been needed as additional tax collectors.
50. Two sons. Joseph gave the two sons born to him names expressive of God’s bountiful providence.
51. Manasseh. Literally, “causing to forget.” This name Joseph gave his first-born in gratitude that God had caused him to forget his former state of servitude and the intense longing he had felt for his father’s home. He was grateful that God had built him a home, though it be in the land of his exile. Erstwhile misery could not embitter his present state of happiness, for adversity had been transformed into prosperity.
The question has been asked, Why did not Joseph, upon reaching so exalted a position, communicate at once with his father? Had he really forgotten his father’s affections, and did he feel no obligation to let the aged man know that he was still alive? That he had not actually ceased to care is clear not alone from the tender meeting with his brothers and his father, soon to be described, but also from the statement he made at the birth of Ephraim, characterizing Egypt as the land of his affliction. That he did not at once declare his parentage and send a message home to Canaan may be attributed to hesitation to reveal to his father the wickedness of which his brothers had been guilty, or perhaps a divine impulse warning him that the time for disclosing the fact had not yet arrived. At all events, Joseph’s conduct in this matter reveals nothing inconsistent with the piety so conspicuously permeating his life. If God chose to place him in Egypt, in Egypt he would remain.
52. Ephraim. That is, “double fruitfulness.” This name was expressive of Joseph’s gratitude that God had given him, a slave doomed to perpetual servitude, a happy family and two sons. The name reflects a heart full of joy and gratitude.
54. The dearth was in all lands. As Joseph had foretold, the seven plentiful years were followed by seven years of famine, which affected not only Egypt but surrounding countries as well. Famine conditions in Egypt are produced when the Nile fails to overflow its banks (see on v. 34), and this in turn is due to a lack of rainfall in the highlands of Abyssinia.
56. Joseph opened all the storehouses. When the Egyptians had consumed their own stores of food they turned to the king, remembering, no doubt, the special grain levy imposed for seven successive years. He directed them to Joseph, the minister of food, who opened the granaries for native Egyptians and for the foreigners who came to Egypt for food. Several hieroglyphic records found in Egypt mention famine conditions. In these records certain high officials claim to have alleviated the misery of the poor and hungry during times of want, proclaiming in their tomb inscriptions, “I gave bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked and a boat to the one who was without.” An official of the Twelfth Dynasty (20th century b.c.) claimed, “When years of famine came I plowed all the fields of the Oryx district, … preserving its people alive and furnishing its food so that there was none hungry therein.”
Joseph’s wisdom as an administrator now became apparent to all. If anyone had had doubt as to his policy of hoarding tremendous quantities of grain year after year, none questioned the prudence of the policy now. What would Pharaoh, a foreign ruler, have done with a famishing population? How could he have averted the overthrow of his own dynasty, except for the forethought of Joseph? This young Hebrew, a former house slave, had become the savior of the throne, of all Egypt, and of surrounding nations as well.
Sold. That Joseph did not distribute the stored grain free to the perishing multitudes was not without reason. The people had certainly been warned of the impending calamity, and might by care and economy have saved a little themselves for the days of want. Since the people had to pay for the grain, they were encouraged to exercise frugality and to avoid wasting the precious supply of food, which must be made to last for seven long years. This plan also enabled Joseph to extend relief to the starving populations of other countries. The fact that the grain was sold back to the people makes it clear that the collection had been made as a form of taxation and not as a public service rendered by the king.
2. Get you down thither. As the drought became more and more severe, and man and beast were both suffering, Jacob made the decision to fetch grain from Egypt to preserve his family from starvation. That he did not, like Abraham (ch. 12:10) and Isaac (ch. 26:2), plan to move his family to Egypt may have been due to the fact that the famine prevailed in Egypt as well as Canaan.
3. Ten brethren went down. That all ten went to Egypt was either for safety or because the grain was distributed to heads of families. Their number would possibly enable them to secure more grain, and would certainly enable them to return with more of it. Also, the famine conditions would render plundering of their caravan for its supplies of food a very real possibility.
4. Benjamin. Benjamin was not kept back because of his youth, since he was now more than 20 years of age, but because, as the only remaining child of Rachel, he had taken Joseph’s place as the object of Jacob’s most tender affections.
5. Among those that came. Joseph’s brothers either formed part of a caravan of Canaanites or simply arrived with others who had come for the same reason.
6. The governor. From shalliṭ in turn derived from the root shalaṭ, “to rule.” It is used to designate one invested with unlimited authority. This word, known also in Aramaic and Arabic, lies behind the title sultan, and perhaps behind the personal name Salatis, which, according to Manetho, belonged to the first Hyksos king. Manetho, however, may have mistaken the word meaning “ruler” for a personal name. This word shows clearly that Joseph was more than an ordinary minister of food. As the second man in the country he was the actual ruler, or prime minister, of Egypt.
7. He knew them. Joseph recognized his brothers at once, but they, not having seen him for more than 20 years, did not recognize him (v. 8). Not only was he older now, but he was Egyptianized as well, wore Egyptian dress and had a clean-shaven face instead of a Semite beard. Furthermore, he spoke a strange language and was, apparently, a great lord. The mere thought of connecting Joseph with this mighty man would have seemed highly absurd (see ch. 45:3).
Spake roughly unto them. That Joseph spoke “hard things to them,” as the text reads literally, was not due to a feeling of revenge, but rather to ascertain their present state of mind, particularly with regard to himself and to Benjamin, whose absence had certainly arrested his attention and perhaps aroused his suspicion.
9. Ye are spies. The “hard things” Joseph spoke to his brothers are now revealed. Egypt had always been suspicious of its eastern neighbors, who had not only raided Egypt and then vanished back into their desert abodes, but had in the past infiltrated Egypt and actually taken over the government of parts of the country. Such incursions during the First Intermediate Period, prior to the Twelfth Dynasty, had led King Amenemhet I to build border fortifications between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, called “Wall of the Ruler,” to keep the Canaanites out of Egypt. The Hyksos, coming afterward and also from the east, had now gained the supremacy of the country and were watchful that others might not do to them what they had done to the Egyptians. It was therefore natural for Joseph to examine all easterners carefully, and make an effort to detect any undesirables or actual spies. Since the famine raging in the neighboring countries brought great numbers of foreigners to Egypt as grain purchasers, greater care had to be taken to weed out those whose presence in the country might endanger its security.
10. Nay, my lord. If Joseph’s brothers were offended by the accusation hurled against them, fear led them to swallow their pride, and they asserted their complete innocence. When their claim to being honest men failed to impress the Egyptian lord, they told him more particularly about their family. By this they sought to prove their innocence. Inasmuch as they all belonged to one family, which could hardly make a hostile attack upon a whole kingdom, there was no real reason for suspecting them of being spies. Joseph took up the challenge and insisted that they prove the accuracy of their story by producing their missing youngest brother.
17. Into ward three days. Joseph had solemnly charged his brothers (v. 15) to send one of their number back to Canaan to fetch Benjamin. Their apparent unwillingness to do this, in the knowledge that Jacob would not consent, led Joseph to send them all to jail for three days. This was ostensibly done in consequence of their unwillingness to agree to his proposal, but in reality to test them further. He had languished in prison for approximately three years, as the result of their inhuman treatment; he inflicted on them a confinement of only three days.
18. This do, and live. On the third day Joseph modified his severe attitude. His explanation, “I fear God,” was intended to be understood in a general way, without reference to Jehovah, as supposedly coming from an Egyptian ruler. Instead of imprisoning nine of them he would keep only one in prison, and allow the others to return to fetch Benjamin and to carry food to their suffering families. Their return with Benjamin would procure the release of the one to be held in prison. If, on the other hand, they had deceived Joseph with their story, they would die of hunger, and the one remaining behind in Egypt would be executed as a spy.
21. We are verily guilty. As they realized that this lord of Egypt would not punish or slay them upon mere suspicion, but judge them justly, their consciences began to speak. How differently they had acted toward Joseph! The ruler of all Egypt had compassion on their families, who suffered hunger in Canaan, whereas they had intended to leave their brother in the pit to starve. As these and similar thoughts passed through their minds, they were led to an acknowledgment of their guilt. Their own misfortune brought back to them the anguish of their brother. Reuben reminded them of how he had warned them, unsuccessfully, not to sin against the boy, and now they were receiving a just reward for their coldness toward him. Thus they accused themselves in Joseph’s presence, without realizing that he understood every word.
24. Took from them Simeon. Passing by Reuben, who had been comparatively guiltless, Joseph selected Simeon, the chief instigator of the cruel treatment he received (PP 226). Simeon’s heartlessness had been manifested on other occasions also, as when he and Levi had massacred the Shechemites. As Simeon was bound before the eyes of his brothers they were forcefully reminded of what they had done to Joseph, who may have hoped that pity for Simeon would encourage their more speedy return with Benjamin.
25. Their sacks. The first word translated “sacks,” keli, means “vessels” or “receptacles,” and may have signified a basket or other container. The second word “sack,” into which the money was placed, is a transliteration of the Hebrew śaq, which has found entrance into the European languages through the Greek sakos and the Latin saccus. Besides these terms another old word for “sack” is used, the Hebrew ‘amtachath. It is employed in the Bible only in connection with this story, and must have been a synonym of śaq, because it is used interchangeably with it (vs. 27, 28; ch. 43:12; etc.).
Joseph did not return their money maliciously, but could not bring himself to accept money from his father and brothers for bread. Even if he may have thought it possible that his brothers would be alarmed upon finding the money, he saw no reason for sparing them this anxiety. It would help to soften their hard hearts still more, after the bitter experiences of the preceding days.
27. Opened his sack. The word “inn” would be more accurately rendered “lodging place,” as in the RSV. The discovery of his money by one of them brought consternation to all. Was it a harbinger of further misfortunes yet to befall them? In Egypt they had already been taken for spies; would they now also be accused as thieves? That the brothers looked upon this, for which they were at a loss to account, as a punishment from God, is evidence of its salutary effect upon them. In their consternation and alarm they forgot to examine the rest of the sacks.
29. They came unto Jacob. Reaching home, they reported their sad experiences, including the detention of Simeon. Upon opening their containers and finding all their money, they were more alarmed than ever. The reason that only one had discovered his money while on the road, and the others after their return home, may have been that it was hidden in the opening of one sack only, but at or near the bottom of the others. Or, it may have been placed in the fodder sack of one and in the food sacks of the others.
36. Me have ye bereaved. Upon hearing their sad story and seeing the evil omen of the returned money, and realizing that he had lost a second son, Jacob broke out in a bitter lament, accusing his sons of responsibility for the loss of Joseph and Simeon. Now, they were bent on taking Benjamin away also. Jacob was hardly fair toward his sons, since he did not know that they were guilty in the matter of Joseph’s disappearance, and since, of course, were not directly to blame for Simeon’s imprisonment. Nevertheless, they must have accepted Jacob’s lament as a well-deserved rebuke. They knew that he spoke more truly than even he himself knew. They had certainly bereaved their father of Joseph, and felt also that Simeon’s imprisonment was a just reward for that cruel act. How could they now shoulder the responsibility of taking Benjamin to Egypt, when there was no certainty that he would return safely? They were in a predicament, but their only other choice was starvation. If they were to secure Simeon’s release and save him from certain death, and if they and their families were to survive the famine, they must return to Egypt for grain.
37. Reuben spake. Reuben’s offer represented supreme sacrifice on his part. It was a sincere but rash offer. Reuben was the eldest, though certainly not the wisest, of Jacob’s sons, and once more he turns up as the tenderhearted one. But Jacob refused; he had little confidence in their ability to guarantee Benjamin’s safe return. Their hands were not clean. They had caused him many anxious hours in the past. Reuben had committed a grievous sin, Simeon and Levi had murdered the population of a city, and the family of Judah was so evil that two of his sons had died in their youth for their wickedness. How could God prosper Benjamin with such men? Everything in which they were involved ended in disappointment or disaster.
2. Go again. When the grain brought from Egypt had all been consumed, and the continued drought brought no relief from famine, Jacob called upon his sons to return to Egypt for “a little food.” The sons themselves were not taking the initiative; they knew the uselessness of returning without Benjamin, and the apparent impossibility of changing their father’s mind. Judah, becoming spokesman for the others, firmly maintained that they would not go unless Benjamin should accompany them, since the Egyptian lord had solemnly declared that they should not see his face without their youngest brother. Judah, Jacob’s fourth son, was spokesman upon this occasion because Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son, had already been refused, Simeon was in an Egyptian prison, and Levi had probably forfeited his father’s confidence as a result of his treachery against the Shechemites (ch. 34).
6. Wherefore dealt ye so ill? To the father’s reproachful question, why they had informed the Egyptian viceroy about Benjamin, they replied in self-defense that they had been guilty of no slip of the tongue. How could they have known that such a question would become a source of trouble later on? Though Joseph’s questions concerning their family do not appear in the preceding narrative (ch. 42:13, 22), it is apparent that that information had been supplied in answer to a direct inquiry. In pleading before Joseph in behalf of Benjamin, Judah later reminded him of having asked just such a question (ch. 44:19).
9. I will be surety. Judah repeated then the unavoidable condition for returning to Egypt, hinting at death by famine as the only alternative. He would personally accept responsibility for Benjamin’s safe return. What more could he, or any of them, do? The nobility of character so conspicuous in Judah’s language is illustrated later in his pathetic pleading before Joseph (ch. 44:18-34). A great change must have taken place in his character since the incidents recorded in chs. 37, 38.
11. If it must be. After the eloquent plea of Judah, whose logic was irrefutable, Jacob submitted to the inevitable. Now that he was reconciled to Benjamin’s going, Jacob set about doing everything within his power that might contribute to the success of the journey. The present he suggested was to be of the choice products of the country, ones that were highly valued in Egypt (see on ch. 37:25).
A little honey. That this was probably not bee “honey” appears from the fact that honey was abundant in Egypt. A small quantity of bee honey from Palestine would not have been considered a respectable gift, even by the giver. More likely, it was grape honey, prepared by boiling grape juice or new wine down to a half or a third of its original volume. The Greeks called it hepsema, “the boiled matter.” It is still imported into Egypt from the Hebron region of Palestine.
Nuts. This fruit, the oblong nut of the Pistacia vera, is mentioned in the Bible only this once. It has an oily kernel and is considered a choice delicacy by Orientals.
Almonds. The almond tree is called shaqed, “the watcher,” from the verb shaqad, “to be sleepless,” “to be awake,” “to watch.” It is the first of all the trees to blossom in the spring. Though it flourished in Syria and Palestine, this tree seems not to have been known in ancient Egypt.
12. Double money. Since the amount paid for the first lot of grain had been returned, Jacob advised his sons to take a double amount of money back to Egypt, to pay for the grain procured previously and for food to be bought on this trip. Although Jacob had feared that the return of the money might be interpreted falsely in Egypt (ch. 42:35), he expressed hope that it might have been done by mistake.
14. If I be bereaved. Before their departure, the aged patriarch blessed his ten sons and expressed confidence that God would give them mercy before the ruler of Egypt. The word translated “mercy” means, literally, “bowels,” and refers to the abdomen, considered anciently the seat of the affections and emotions. Though Jacob expressed faith in God’s protection, his very next statement reveals uncertainty as to whether God could bless his reprobate sons. They were an unpredictable lot, and might be counted on to get into trouble even where none might otherwise exist. In a spirit of resignation he acquiesced to the divine will, whatever it might be.
16. When Joseph saw Benjamin. Inasmuch as Joseph had charged them with being spies, there was no way of by-passing him and getting the desired corn from a lesser official. Joseph had probably issued an order to have them brought to him personally as soon as they should return to Egypt. Whatever may have been the procedure required of foreigners, especially of Jacob’s sons, the ten brothers soon found themselves once more in the presence of the dreaded lord of the land. Seeing the men, Joseph gave orders for them to be taken to his private residence and a meal prepared for them, literally, “to slaughter a slaughtering.” Egyptian reliefs reveal that beef and geese constituted the rich man’s usual fare in Egypt, and that considerable quantities of meat were served at meals when visitors were entertained.
18. The men were afraid. Joseph’s brothers were more deeply alarmed than ever upon discovering that they were to be taken to Joseph’s house. They may not have understood Joseph’s order, which had been given in Egyptian, and when they arrived at his official residence and were bidden to enter, they expected to be put into slavery, under indictment for theft. In an effort to avert what they feared, they approached the steward at the door, explaining how they had found the money in their sacks and that they were prepared to repay it. There is no need to assume a discrepancy between the record of the occurrence as given in ch. 42:27, 28 and as repeated here. It is possible that all had opened their sacks at the “inn,” but that only one had discovered his money at that time. It is inconceivable that the entire group had taken back only ten sacks of grain to feed their animals and their families for a period of several months.
23. I had your money. The steward, who apparently knew of Joseph’s plans, calmed them with the reassurance that their money had reached him, and that the reappearance of their money was to be explained as an act of God. As if to banish all their fears, he brought Simeon to them, and with true Oriental courtesy treated them as guests, giving them water for washing their feet and feeding their beasts of burden.
26. When Joseph came home. Joseph may have been busy on some important matter when his brothers arrived, and could not give them his attention just then. Or, more likely, his plans were already well laid, and he did not wish to see them until the time designated. Upon Joseph’s return, they handed him their present with the most reverential obeisance, unwittingly fulfilling the dreams of Joseph that had incited their intense hatred for him.
29. Saw his brother. When his eyes fell upon Benjamin, his brother by his own mother, Joseph went through the form of inquiring as to his identity—had the men actually fulfilled the required conditions?
30. His bowels did yearn. This was the second occasion on which Joseph was overcome with emotion, the first having been when his brothers spoke of their cruelty toward himself (ch. 42:21). Now it was the sight of his own brother, whom he had not seen for 22 long years, that stirred his emotions. The expression “did yearn” reads literally, “were becoming warm,” that is, due to the intensity of his love (see on v. 14). Since he desired to test the attitude of his brothers toward Benjamin, he was not yet ready to make himself known to them, and withdrew hastily lest he be unable to carry his plan through to its logical conclusion. At the meal, where they might be expected to converse freely, he would have an excellent opportunity to discern their attitude. Regaining his poise, he washed his face, rejoined his brothers, and ordered dinner served.
32. For him by himself. A separate table was prepared for him, for his brothers, and for the Egyptians who dined with him. He ate separately either because of his high position or because his Egyptian entourage would not eat with him, an Asiatic, for the same reason they would not eat with Joseph’s brothers. The ancient Egyptians were always particular in the matter of association with foreigners. They considered themselves to be the highest class of human beings. They called themselves “people,” whereas all others were more or less barbarians, creatures standing between them and the animal world. The aversion to foreigners revealed itself strikingly in the matter of eating. The Hebrews, for example, slaughtered and ate animals that were regarded by the Egyptians as sacred. According to the account of Herodotus (ii. 41), no Egyptian would use the knife, or fork, or saucepan of a Greek, nor would he eat of the flesh of a clean animal that had been cut up with a Grecian knife.
33. The men marvelled. Discovering their arrangement at the table according to age, the men looked at one another with amazement, convinced that this august official had been supernaturally advised as to their ages.
34. Five times. To honor the men, special servings were brought them from Joseph’s table. To show Benjamin special honor, Joseph sent him choice cuts five times larger than those sent the others. Benjamin was the guest of honor. The custom of showing respect to distinguished guests by giving them the largest and best pieces appears in other ancient records (see 1 Sam. 9:23, 24; Homer Iliad vii. 321; viii. 162; Herodotus vi. 57). Joseph sought to test his brothers that he might discover their real feelings toward Benjamin, and thus toward himself. He desired to see whether they envied and hated their youngest brother on account of his maternity, as they had formerly envied Joseph.
2. Put my cup. This was Joseph’s final and decisive test prior to revealing himself to his brothers. His purpose was to create a situation by which he could legitimately claim the right to retain Benjamin in Egypt, so that his brothers might have an excuse for returning to Canaan without the favorite of their father. By this he would learn beyond a doubt what kind of men they now were. Either they would abide by the decision of Joseph to keep Benjamin in Egypt and return to their father with the heartbreaking message that he must reconcile himself to the loss of the remaining son of his beloved Rachel, or they would do everything in their power to prevent such a misfortune.
5. Whereby indeed he divineth. The goblet was a valuable possession. It was not an ordinary drinking cup, but one, supposedly, capable of detecting any poisonous substance placed in it. Such cups were also used for the practice of magic. The word translated “divineth” means “to whisper,” “to mumble,” “to prophesy.” Classical writers speak of the Oriental practice of pouring water into a goblet and looking into it for representations of future events (Jamblichus De mysteriis iii. 14). Another custom described by the ancients consisted of pouring water into a goblet, dropping in pieces of gold and silver or precious stones, and then observing and interpreting the appearance in the water (Pliny Natural History xxxvii. 73; Strabo Geography xvi. 2. 39). That the steward was ordered to mention the practice of magic to the brothers does not imply that Joseph had actually adopted this superstitious practice himself. As previously (ch. 43:33), he was willing that they should believe he could read their thoughts. This would tend to unnerve them and lead them to abandon pretense.
On account of his great wisdom, the Egyptians probably attributed to Joseph the practice of magic. Had he not accurately predicted the years of plenty and of famine, and taken care that Egypt be prepared for the emergency? He certainly excelled their best “magicians” (ch. 41:8), and must therefore possess superior magic (see Ex. 8:19). Perhaps his fame as a wise man had spread far and wide, even to foreign lands, so that the supposed thieves of the goblet might appropriately be asked whether they were unaware of this fact (Gen. 44:15).
9. Let him die. Conscious of their complete innocence, the brothers did not hesitate to pronounce upon themselves the most severe penalty should the missing object be found with them. Their rash words seem a little foolhardy, particularly after the experience of finding their money mysteriously placed in their sacks. They might have been expected to be suspicious, and consequently somewhat more cautious. However, the unfeigned friendliness with which they had been received and entertained upon their second visit to Egypt, both by the viceroy himself and by his subordinates, had dissipated all doubts concerning the sincerity of Joseph’s intentions.
10. Let it be. Professing an exalted sense of fairness and justice, the steward declined to think of punishing the innocent with the guilty, or even the guilty as rigorously as they proposed. When others speak rashly we should not take advantage of their rashness. We ourselves may at times make commitments without due deliberation which might bring injury to us, except for the leniency of others.
12. He searched. The steward’s systematic search must have reminded them of their surprise the day before at finding themselves seated according to age. Also it must have kept them tense, for the lost object was not found until the very last moment of the search. One after another the men found themselves cleared. By facial expression, and perhaps even in words, they may have expressed triumph at the growing evidence of their declared innocence. But then the lost object was found in Benjamin’s sack. With anguish and alarm at this new calamity they rent their clothes (see on ch. 37:34), reloaded their asses, and returned to the city.
13. Returned to the city. Now it would be seen how they felt in their inmost hearts toward their father’s favorite, who had been so honored by the great man of Egypt. Would they give him up as they had Joseph, and bring their aged father with sorrow to the grave, or would they be ready to surrender their own liberty and lives that he might return in safety to his father?
14. They fell before him. With Judah leading the way, the men came to Joseph’s house, where they all fell down before him, pleading for mercy. Several ancient Egyptian reliefs depicting similar situations have been preserved. One shows Canaanite petitioners before the general Haremhab in the 14th century b.c. Some of them lie flat on the ground, with arms outstretched and heads lifted pleadingly to the high official. Others kneel or bow low before him, all of them with arms raised, to impress the general with the urgency of their request. In the case of those who fell down before Haremhab the request was to be permitted to settle in Egypt, since they had been expelled from their homeland.
15. Wot ye not? Joseph spoke harshly, which must have been reminiscent of the reception accorded them on their first visit to Egypt. On Joseph as not being a practitioner of magic, see on v. 5.
16. Judah said. Judah, the leader of this second mission to Egypt (ch. 43:8), stepped forward as spokesman. He made no attempt to justify himself and his brothers or to clear himself and them from suspicion, but acknowledged freely their guilt. He referred, without doubt, to the crime committed against their brother Joseph, a crime that had been haunting their consciences ever since its perpetration (ch. 42:21, 22). To the Egyptian bystanders, particularly the steward, the words of Judah meant the acknowledgment of their guilt, and this no doubt astonished the Egyptians, since they knew the men were really innocent. Joseph must have felt the anguish of their souls, realizing that they felt the punishment soon to be meted out was deserved. In reply to Judah’s offer that all should remain as slaves in Egypt, where they had once sold their brother into slavery, Joseph declared that his sentence would be mild and just. The guilty one alone should be his slave; the others might go back to their father unharmed and unmolested.
18. Judah came near. The remaining 17 verses of the chapter repeat the speech of Judah on behalf of his brother Benjamin. This speech has appropriately been called one of the masterpieces of Hebrew literary composition, one of the finest specimens of natural eloquence in the world.
Thou art even as Pharaoh. Judah’s speech began with a request for a gracious hearing. He was speaking to one who was equal to Pharaoh, with authority to condemn or to pardon. Inasmuch as the monarch of Egypt was considered a god, the paragon of all perfection, the highest honor that might be conferred upon a person was comparison with the monarch.
19. My lord asked his servants. First of all, Judah related how Benjamin happened to become involved in the trouble. Joseph had inquired into their family affairs, and they had truthfully informed him concerning their youngest brother, who was still at home. Joseph had insisted that they should not venture to return to Egypt without their brother, by way of proving his existence and thus the accuracy of their statements. Although some phases of this report relate more than the shorter account of the conversation in ch. 42, Judah must have reported the original conversation accurately, in order to avoid making any untrue or exaggerated statements.
25. Our father said. After having reminded Joseph in courteous but definite terms that his demands were the cause of Benjamin’s presence in Egypt, he proceeded to depict in affectionate and effective words the love of their aged father for the son of his old age, and his grief when they informed him that they might not return to Egypt without Benjamin. He related the intense anxiety with which, after a severe struggle, their father had finally permitted him to come. He emphasized the sober fact that they would bring down the gray hairs of their father with sorrow to the grave (see ch. 37:35), should they return without the youth.
27. Ye know that my wife. This remark, made here for the first time, implies that Jacob regarded Rachel more as his actual wife than Leah, Bilhah, or Zilpah (see ch. 46:19). She was ever the wife of his affections.
28. Surely he is torn. Jacob meant here that Joseph, had he been alive, would certainly have been able to return himself or to send word. Never having seen him since that fateful day of his departure from Hebron, Jacob could only conclude that his fears were fully justified.
33. Instead of the lad. Judah’s self-sacrifice is certainly deserving of praise. Voluntary submission to servitude on behalf of a brother who enjoyed a higher degree of parental affection, in order to save his aged father fresh sorrow and anguish, cannot be overestimated. Judah’s self-forgetful magnanimity has never been surpassed, and but seldom equaled. Judah emerges here as a truly converted man, a worthy ancestor of the promised seed, and worthy to give his name to the chosen people of God.
Joseph could no longer doubt that a complete change had come over his brothers, and over Judah in particular, since the day when he had so eloquently urged the sale of Joseph into slavery. Joseph’s tactics had proved eminently successful. He was now convinced regarding the attitude of his brothers, and satisfied that their conversion was genuine. There was no further need to test them, and he was therefore ready to reveal his identity.
1. Then Joseph could not refrain. Judah’s appeal did not fail to impress Joseph. His speech had shown the most tender affection for their aged father, the most devoted brotherly love and faithfulness to the only remaining son of Rachel, and had given ample evidence of the change of heart that had taken place in all of them. Recognizing this, Joseph could not restrain himself longer. Wishing to be alone with his brothers while he revealed his identity to them, and feeling that he could not keep back his tears, he ordered all his attendants to leave the room.
2. He wept aloud. This, Joseph’s entourage heard and reported to Pharaoh. It is not necessary to suppose that Joseph’s residence was so close to the palace that his voice was heard by the king’s household itself.
3. I am Joseph. The effect of this announcement is easier to imagine than to describe. Hitherto Joseph had been known to his brothers as Zaphnath-paaneah, a man who spoke to them through an interpreter (ch. 42:23). Now this august lord of Egypt suddenly spoke to them in their own language. The voice and the likeness of their long-lost brother rushed upon their minds at the sound of the familiar name and filled them with amazement and apprehension.
Doth my father yet live? Perhaps Joseph was impelled to ask this question so abruptly upon seeing alarm in their faces. Now he no longer refers to Jacob as the “old man of whom ye spake” (ch. 43:27), but as his own beloved and revered father. That he was still living, Joseph had not only been informed previously (ch. 43:27, 28), but had just been told again (ch. 44:34). His heart yearned to hear more of his father.
They were troubled. This new turn in events was too much; the men were speechless. They were terrified, not only because of Joseph’s greatness, but by the recollection of their former crime against him. So far, they had been conscious only of divine retribution for that act, and had not feared human punishment, inasmuch as their crime was not known to anyone outside of their own small circle. Now, however, they stood in the presence of the one whom they had so deeply wronged. Little wonder that they cringed in alarm before him, thinking that now the hour of recompense for the deeds of Dothan had arrived.
5. Be not grieved. Instinctively they shrank from Joseph’s presence, at the alarming truth that the mighty lord of Egypt was their brother. He assured them in the kindest of words that he had no intention of taking revenge on them. He could not avoid allusion to their former wickedness, but this was done in a spirit of charity and forgiveness.
God did send me. Joseph’s great-mindedness is clearly reflected here. God’s hand was evident in the strange experience that had made him, a favorite son, first a slave, then a prisoner, and finally ruler of Egypt. He might have justly rebuked his brothers, but instead he manifested sympathy and consideration toward them.
6. Neither be earing nor harvest. “Earing” does not refer to the collection of ears of corn, which would make the word a synonym for harvest. It means, literally, “plowing,” from the Anglo-Saxon erian, probably borrowed from the Latin aro, “to plow.” This is also the meaning of the Hebrew word so translated. In other countries the failure to plant and to harvest would be due to a lack of rain; in Egypt, to a marked deficiency in the rise of the Nile (see on ch. 41:34). That Joseph spoke of there being neither sowing nor reaping in a general, rather than in an absolute, sense is evident from ch. 47:19, which states that the Egyptians came to Joseph to buy seed. It is probable that even during this famine they sowed some of the ground, particularly near the banks of the river, from which a crop, though small, might be reaped.
7. To preserve. Joseph repeated his former assertion, that it was God who had sent him to Egypt for a definite purpose. He spoke prophetically here, to the effect that God had brought him to Egypt in order to preserve through him the family destined to become God’s chosen people, by delivering them from starvation.
8. A father to Pharaoh. Joseph spoke to them concerning his authority, giving God the honor for his appointment to the high position he held. He used three expressions to describe his office, of which the first was “father to Pharaoh.” Some commentators have seen in it a specific Egyptian title, one clearly attested for high dignitaries of the Eighteenth Dynasty. But this interpretation is questionable, inasmuch as the title was borne by men who fulfilled priestly duties, and there is not the slightest evidence that Joseph performed any such duties. It is probably better to explain the word as a Hebrew expression, since Joseph spoke to his brothers as a Hebrew to Hebrews, and not as an Egyptian. He may have meant that he was a trusted counselor of the king and a sustainer of the dynasty (see Isa. 22:21; Job 29:16).
Lord of all his house. The second term had already been used by the king himself, at the time of Joseph’s appointment (Gen. 41:40). It indicates that Joseph stood at the head of the royal household.
Ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. The third designation, also bestowed upon Joseph by Pharaoh, was certainly not new to Joseph’s brothers, who had heard of and experienced his authority. They already knew that his power was not limited to the distribution of food or to dealings with foreigners, but that he was actually viceroy of Egypt (see ch. 42:30).
10. The land of Goshen. Although the name Goshen has not yet been found outside of the Bible, it is generally agreed that the area around the Wadi Tumilat, in the eastern part of the Nile Delta, is meant. It is a valley some 40 mi. in length, whose river, usually dry except in the rainy season, connects the Nile with Lake Timsah. This area has been one of the richest sections of Egypt, in both ancient and modern times.
Near unto me. Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos, was only 20 to 30 mi. from this area, much closer than any other capital in all of Egypt’s history. This is one of the many arguments supporting the view that Joseph was ruler over Egypt in the time of the Hyksos.
12. Your eyes see. Although Joseph had now spoken for several minutes, his brothers were so overwhelmed that to convince them of the reality of the whole affair, Joseph was obliged to point out that they could see for themselves that what he said was true. Only when Joseph embraced his brothers and kissed them was the spell broken. Now they regained control over their emotions and were able to converse with him. When he had revealed himself in the role of a loving brother and not of an offended judge, and by his kisses and tears had given them assurance of complete forgiveness, a truth that words could not have expressed so well, only then did they dare to speak.
16. It pleased Pharaoh. The report of the arrival of Joseph’s brothers soon reached the ear of the king and made so favorable an impression on him and on the other courtiers, that the king was happy to confirm Joseph’s invitation to his brothers to come with their father and their families to Egypt. Though Joseph had the authority to invite his family, he apparently felt it right and proper to seek and receive Pharaoh’s personal approval, lest his conduct in office be open to question. No one could say that Joseph had in any way taken personal advantage of the power and authority entrusted to him. It is evident also that Joseph’s administrative ability, demonstrated now for nine years, had so pleased the king and the other statesmen of Egypt that they were delighted to have Joseph’s relatives make their home in Egypt. To Pharaoh it was an opportunity to show his gratitude.
19. Take you wagons. Since the Hyksos had introduced the first horses and the first chariots into Egypt, neither of which had previously been known in the Nile valley, light two-wheeled vehicles were in use by the Egyptians, especially in warfare, but also for transportation outside of Egypt. In Egypt itself all transportation of people and goods was carried on by boats on the Nile, and carriages were of little use.
20. Regard not your stuff. Joseph had asked his brothers to come to Egypt with all their possessions. Pharaoh, in contrast, manifested his good will by inviting them to leave all their household furniture behind and accept the bounties of Egypt in token of his gratitude for what Joseph, one of them, had done for the country of his adoption.
22. Changes of raiment. Joseph not only sent carriages, according to Pharaoh’s directions, and food for the journey, but also gave presents to his brothers. The phrase “changes of raiment” probably means “festal garments,” as in the RSV, that is, clothing to be worn on special occasions. Thus upon arrival in Egypt they would not be unduly conspicuous. Inasmuch as Benjamin is specifically mentioned as receiving five such “changes,” it is probable that the others received less than five each, though certainly more than one. The 300 shekels of silver, given to Benjamin, as Joseph’s favorite brother, would weigh approximately 71/2 lbs. (3.42 kg.).
24. Fall not out. Literally, “be not moved,” or “be not disturbed,” that is, with violent emotion, particularly anger. This is generally understood as an admonition against quarreling, particularly over their relative responsibility for the course events had taken. This advice gives evidence of Joseph’s deep insight into human nature. He had already overheard Reuben denounce his brothers severely (ch. 42:22). He might well suppose that Reuben and others would repeat these things, even more vehemently, when alone. Reuben might have argued how different the result would have been had they taken his advice. After that each would have added his own comments, and a serious quarrel might have been the result. The unexpected prosperity into which they had fallen might also serve to arouse old feelings of enmity, particularly with respect to Benjamin. All this was now restrained by Joseph’s sober and timely advice.
26. He believed them not. When they reached their home at Hebron, bringing word that Joseph was not only alive but ruler of all Egypt, the shock was so great that Jacob’s heart nearly stopped. When his sons had come to Hebron with the tidings of Joseph’s supposed death, Jacob had readily believed their lies. Now that they came telling the truth, Jacob would not believe them at all. Only the costly gifts and the Egyptian carriages finally convinced him of the truth of their story.
28. Israel said. The change of name here is significant. In spirit, Jacob rose once more to the stature of a “prince” of God. The realization that his long-lost son was still living and the anticipation of the imminent reunion with him invigorated the aged patriarch. His vitality revived, as is apparent from the immediate decision to go down to Egypt. The sight of Joseph would be rich compensation for all the long years of sorrow and anguish, and would crown his life with joy.
1. Came to Beer-sheba. Jacob’s camp had probably been at Hebron for many years (chs. 35:27; 37:14), the place where his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac were buried, together with other members of the family. This was probably the place of departure. On his way to Egypt, Jacob halted at Beersheba, on the southern borders of Canaan, where Abraham (ch. 21:33) and Isaac (ch. 26:25) had erected altars to Jehovah. When Jacob passed this sacred place, and saw, possibly, the remains of his father’s altar, he stopped to offer sacrifices to God, who had dealt with him so graciously in the past. These sacrifices were probably thank offerings for the good tidings concerning Joseph. Jacob may also have desired to consult with God concerning his journey to Egypt, which may have occasioned gloomy forebodings in view of the scenes of affliction revealed to Abraham (ch. 15:13). It is certain that Jacob here commended himself and his family to the care of God.
2. God spake unto Israel. This was apparently the first vision accorded Jacob for many years. Several of the previous revelations had come during the night, mostly in the form of dreams (chs. 28:12; 31:11; 32:30). This one is not called a dream, which would have come during sleep, but a vision.
Jacob, Jacob. That God called him Jacob instead of Israel may have been to remind him of what he had been, since he had seen his own former character clearly reflected in that of his sons. Once he had deceived his father and cheated his brother; his own sons had deceived him concerning Joseph for 22 years ere the truth came out. Many times he no doubt wished he might see nobler traits in his sons, only to think of the unregenerate character he himself had possessed for so many years.
3. Fear not. This divine admonition reveals the fact that Jacob had feared he might be doing wrong in going to Egypt. He yearned to see Joseph, his long-lost son; but he also remembered the evil consequences of Abraham’s journey to Egypt (ch. 12:14-20), and that God had once forbidden Isaac to go there during a famine (ch. 26:2). Whether his journey would meet God’s approval may have been a serious question in the patriarch’s mind. Now God expressed approval of the journey and gave him reassuring promises. As formerly, when setting out for Padan-aram, so now in departing for Egypt, Jacob received the assurance that God would go with him, that the divine promise concerning his posterity was still valid, and that the move into Egypt would not mean the permanent abandonment of the Land of Promise.
4. Bring thee up again. In a limited sense this promise was fulfilled to Jacob personally, when his body was returned to Canaan for interment, but fully in the exodus of Jacob’s descendants from Egypt some 215 years later.
6. All his seed. Strengthened and encouraged by the divine promises again vouchsafed to him in the nightly vision, Jacob went into Egypt, accompanied by his children and grandchildren.
Many commentators have drawn attention to a tomb picture from Beni Hasan in Egypt, as a parallel to Jacob’s migration to Egypt. This picture, already described in connection with Abraham’s earlier journey to Egypt (see on ch. 12:10), depicts the arrival of Semites in the Nile valley in the 19th century b.c., at the time of the Twelfth Dynasty. This would be at least two centuries before Jacob’s journey to Egypt, and the picture therefore cannot be taken as a contemporary illustration of the event under discussion. It is, nevertheless, important to an understanding of Jacob’s migration, because it shows Semitic men and women with their goods loaded upon asses and their children in wicker baskets on the backs of asses. It shows their colorful dress, and the style of their garments, shoes, weapons, and even a musical instrument, a lyre (see p. 160).
8. The children of Israel. First occurrence of this expression. The size of Jacob’s family, which was to grow into a great nation, is given here, in evident allusion to the fulfillment of the divine promise with which he went into Egypt. The list of names includes not merely the “sons of Israel” in the stricter sense, but also the patriarch himself, and Joseph, with his two sons, who were born before Jacob’s arrival in Egypt.
9. The sons of Reuben. Of the four sons of Reuben, the last two mentioned must have been mere babes in the arms of their mother, since Reuben had had only two sons at the time of his first return from Egypt (ch. 42:37). Their names mean: Hanoch (a variant of “Enoch”), the name also of Cain’s first-born (ch. 4:17), and of the patriarch Enoch (ch. 5:19), means “dedicated”; Phallu, “separated”; Hezron, “enclosure”; and Carmi, “vinedresser” or “my vineyard.”
10. The sons of Simeon. Jemuel means “day of God”; Jamin, “right hand”; Ohad, “united”; Jachin, “he [God] establishes”; Zohar, “whiteness” or “brilliance”; and Shaul, “asked for.”
Canaanitish woman. The reference to one of the sons of Simeon as “the son of a Canaanitish woman” implies that it was not the custom of the sons of Jacob to take wives from among the Canaanites. As a rule they were chosen from the paternal relatives in Mesopotamia, the families of Ishmael, the Keturah sons, or Esau. Only Simeon and Judah (ch. 38:2) seem to have had Canaanite wives.
11. The sons of Levi. Gershon means “expulsion” or “extortion”; Kohath, “assembly”; and Merari, “bitter.”
12. The sons of Judah. On the meaning of the names of Pharez and Zarah see on ch. 38:29, 30. Er and Onan, who died in the land of Canaan, are not counted, but Pharez already had two sons, Hezron, meaning “enclosure” (see v. 9), and Hamul, “one who has received mercy.”
13. The sons of Issachar. Tola means “worm” or “scarlet,” and Phuvah, “mouth.” Job, which seems to stand for the unabbreviated form Jashub (Num. 26:24; 1 Chron. 7:1), means “turning oneself,” and Shimron, “watch.”
14. The sons of Zebulun. Sered means “fear”; Elon, “oak”; and Jahleel, “wait for God.”
15. Dinah. Apparently unmarried since her misfortune in Shechem, and therefore mentioned here as an independent member of Jacob’s family.
Thirty and three. This number is reached either by excluding Er and Onan and including Jacob and Dinah, as is most likely correct, or by including Er and Onan and excluding Jacob and Dinah. The 6 sons of Leah, 23 grandsons (who were still alive), 2 great-grandsons (sons of Pharez), and 1 daughter, add up to 32 persons, or with Jacob, 33.
16. The sons of Gad. Ziphion means “expectation”; Haggi, “festive”; Shuni, “quiet”; Ezbon, “toiling”; Eri, “guarding”; Arodi, “hunch-backed”; and Areli, “lion of God.”
17. The sons of Asher. The meaning of Jimnah is uncertain. Ishuah and Isui both have the same meaning, “he is equal,” and Beriah means “gift.” Their sister Serah’s name means “abundance.” Heber means “friend” or “fellow,” and Malchiel, “king of God.”
It is inconceivable that of Jacob’s grandchildren, of whom 51 grandsons are enumerated by name, only 1 girl should have been born, the daughter of Asher. She is probably mentioned because, like Dinah (v. 15), she remained unmarried. She had not gone over to another family, like the other daughters and granddaughters of Jacob, who had followed their husbands to their homes.
18. Sixteen souls. Zilpah’s 2 sons, her 11 grandsons, 1 granddaughter, and 2 great-grandsons make up the number 16.
21. The sons of Benjamin. Belah means “devouring,” and Becher, “young male camel.” Ashbel, Gera, Muppim, and Ard are of uncertain meaning. Naaman means “pleasantness”; Ehi, “my brother”; Rosh, “head”; and Huppim, “coverings.”
In Benjamin’s genealogical list of Num. 26:40 Naaman and Ard are given as the sons of Bela, that is, the grandsons of Benjamin. A reasonable explanation is that the two sons of Benjamin, Naaman and Ard, died without offspring, and that Bela called his sons after the names of his two deceased brothers. In this way they would take not only their uncles’ names but also their position in the tribe, and become heads of families. The names of Becher, Gera, and Rosh may likewise have been omitted from the list in Num. 26 for the reason that they had died early without offspring.
22. All the souls were fourteen. Rachel’s 2 sons and her 12 grandsons make up the number of 14.
23. The sons of Dan. Only one son of Dan is listed. The plural form “sons” is used as a stereotype phrase, whether one or several sons are named. Another example of this custom is v. 15, where the term “daughters” is used, although only one, Dinah, is mentioned. Hushim’s name is of uncertain meaning.
24. The sons of Naphtali. Jahzeel means “allotted by God,” but Guni is of uncertain meaning. Jezer means “image” or “frame,” and Shillem, “recompense.”
25. All the souls were seven. Bilhah’s two sons and five grandsons make up this number.
26. All the souls. This figure includes only descendants of Jacob who were still living at the time of the migration to Egypt, but not his sons’ wives, or his married daughters and their families, if such came down with him to Egypt, since they had become members of other tribes. The number 66 is constituted of the following parts:
Jacob’s 11 sons and 1 unmarried daughter | 12 |
Reuben’s sons | 4 |
Simeon’s sons | 6 |
Levi’s sons | 3 |
Judah’s 3 sons and 2 grandsons | 5 |
Issachar’s sons | 4 |
Zebulun’s sons | 3 |
Gad’s sons | 7 |
Asher’s 4 sons, 1 daughter, and 2 grandsons | 7 |
Dan’s son | 1 |
Naphtali’s sons | 4 |
Benjamin’s sons | 10 |
Total | 66 |
27. Threescore and ten. Moses adds Jacob, Joseph, and his 2 sons to the 66 descendants of Jacob, giving 70 as the total of Jacob’s family that settled in Egypt. Stephen’s total of 75 (Acts 7:14), instead of 70, is probably due to his being a Greek-speaking Jew who used the Greek OT version, often quoted in the NT (see on Acts 6:1). This version includes 5 other (later) descendants of Joseph (see vs. 20, 27, LXX).
28. He sent Judah before him. The list of the house of Jacob is followed by an account of the arrival in Egypt. Judah, having shown remarkable qualities of leadership on their previous trip to Egypt, was naturally selected to represent the aged patriarch and announce his arrival. He would also obtain from Joseph necessary instructions as to the place of their settlement, and then return to guide the caravan to Goshen (see on ch. 45:10). The fact that Judah performed this task suggests that he had already been selected by Jacob as inheritor of the birthright. Benjamin, though beloved, was young and lacking in experience, and, as later circumstances proved, he lacked qualities of leadership. Benjamin was only a “wolf,” but Judah was a “lion” (ch. 49:9, 27).
29. Fell on his neck. The expression “presented himself,” generally used only of the appearance of God, here suggests the glory in which Joseph came to meet his father. This meeting brought the lives of both men to a climax. How earnestly they had yearned to see each other is a matter for the imagination, not for description. Their great love, each for the other, overflowing in the joy of their hearts, was poured out in tears, which could no longer be kept back. These were tears of joy, that came after many tears of bitterness shed during their long separation.
30. Now let me die. Not that Jacob wished to die, but that he was now completely satisfied. Having seen Joseph with his own eyes, and knowing that his beloved son’s happiness was assured, he felt that life could offer him no greater joy. The last earthly longing of his heart was completely satisfied, and he was ready to lay down his life whenever and wherever God saw fit.
33. When Pharaoh shall call you. One of the first things Joseph purposed to do, after welcoming his relatives to Egypt, was to introduce his father and brothers to the king. Pharaoh might have intended to appoint some of them as officers, thinking they might be as useful to him as Joseph. But Joseph, well aware of the allurements of Egyptian court life, and the weak characters of his brothers, feared that they might soon succumb to temptation and lose the vision of their future part in God’s plan. This way why Joseph emphasized that they should state, if asked, that their occupation was that of shepherds, so implying that they were unqualified for court life.
34. The land of Goshen. Goshen, in the eastern Delta region, was admirably suitable for flocks and herds. Though near the capital (ch. 45:10), it would isolate them from the Egyptians, and would permit them to live their own lives, continue their own culture, and serve their own God without offense to others. Furthermore, they would be comparatively near to Canaan, and could easily leave in a time of emergency. Joseph thus revealed insight into the destiny of his people, apparently realizing that the time would come when they would have to leave.
Every shepherd is an abomination. These are probably not the words of Joseph, but of Moses, the historian, given in explanation of Joseph’s advice and action. If his brothers should voice a desire to continue their occupation as shepherds, the king would most likely consent to their settling in the region of Goshen, which would isolate them from the valley of the Nile and most Egyptians. Moses’ evaluation of the Egyptian attitude toward shepherds is corroborated later by Greek writers (Herodotus, ii. 47, 164) and by Josephus (Antiquities ii. 7. 5), as earlier by pictorial representations in paintings and reliefs. Shepherds are frequently represented as miserable creatures, dirty and unshaven, naked and half starved, and often either lame or deformed.
2. Took some of his brethren. Having previously informed Pharaoh of the arrival of his relatives in Goshen, Joseph presented five of his brothers to the king. The Hebrew expression correctly translated “some of his brethren” in the KJV was misunderstood by earlier commentators, who gave unwarranted interpretations of it. It is simply a Hebrew idiom meaning “out of the whole number of his brothers.”
6. The land of Egypt is before thee. They had come to sojourn in the land (not to settle there) because there was no pasture for their flocks in the land of Canaan, owing to the drought. The king then authorized Joseph to give his father and brothers a dwelling in the best part of the country, the land of Goshen.
7. Joseph brought in Jacob. Joseph then presented his father to Pharaoh, once royal permission had already been given for settling in the region of Goshen. It has been suggested that the interview granted Joseph’s brothers was of an official nature, whereas Jacob’s audience with the monarch was of a purely private character. The king may have requested the opportunity of meeting the father of his first minister.
Jacob blessed Pharaoh. Jacob did not extend to Pharaoh the customary salutation accorded kings, such as, “May the king live forever!” (2 Sam. 16:16; 1 Kings 1:25; Dan. 2:4; etc.). Conscious of his own dignity as a prophet of Jehovah, Jacob pronounced upon him a heavenly benediction.
9. The years of my pilgrimage. Jacob referred to his own life and that of his father as a “pilgrimage.” They had not come into actual possession of Canaan, but had been obliged to wander about, unsettled and homeless, in the land promised them as an inheritance. This “pilgrimage” was at the same time a figurative representation of the inconsistency and weariness of the earthly life, in which man does not attain to that true rest for which he was created and for which his soul continually longs (see Heb. 4:8, 9). Paul could therefore appropriately regard these words of Jacob as a declaration of the yearning of the patriarchs for the eternal rest of the heavenly Canaan (Heb. 11:13-16).
An hundred and thirty years. Joseph had been 30 years old at the time of his appointment to office (Gen. 41:46), and since that time the 7 plentiful years (ch. 41:47-49) and 2 years of famine had passed (ch. 45:6). Now he had reached the age of 39, and his father was 130 years of age. It is evident from these figures that Joseph was born when his father was 91 years old. Since his birth occurred at the close of Jacob’s 14 years of residence in Padan-aram (ch. 30:25), the patriarch’s age upon arrival there must have been 77.
Few and evil. Jacob’s evaluation of his life was only too true when compared with that of his fathers. Abraham had lived to be 175 years old, and Isaac 180. Neither had led so uncertain a life, so full of distress and danger, of tribulation and anguish, as had Jacob. From his flight to Haran to the time of his removal to Egypt, his life had been nothing but one long succession of troubles (ch. 42:36).
11. The land of Rameses. Two views concerning this statement are held by critical scholars. According to some, it constitutes strong evidence for a variant tradition regarding the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt, inasmuch as the land has thus far been called Goshen (vs. 1, 6). Others have drawn the conclusion that it indicates the time when the children of Israel were in Egypt as that of the Ramessides. The first Ramses began to reign in 1320 b.c. The first argument is unacceptable because Moses was sole author of Genesis, and the book is a historical narrative and not a collection of traditions. Neither can the second argument be accepted, for it would bring chronological confusion to this section of the OT narrative. It must therefore be assumed that the term “land of Rameses” was a later name for the older term “and of Goshen,” and accordingly represents the effort of a copyist to identify “Goshen” for his readers. By the same procedure we might say today that New York was founded by the Dutch, although the city they founded was known as New Amsterdam. Our statement would nevertheless be considered not only correct but even desirable, for the name New Amsterdam would have no meaning for many modern readers.
12. According to their families. Literally, “according to the mouth of the little ones.” It probably means “in proportion to the size of their families.” Some commentators, however, have thought that it refers to Joseph as providing food for his relatives as a father would for his offspring, and others, that it means all were fed, from the greatest to the least. The benefits Joseph was in a position to confer upon his family become all the more apparent from the description of the distress into which the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were plunged by the continuation of the famine for five years more.
13. Fainted. This verse introduces a great social revolution forced upon Egypt by the stern necessity of famine, which had by now reduced the entire nation to a state of utter misery.
16. Give your cattle. The animals that thus became Pharaoh’s property were probably left in the care of their owners. These terms, therefore, were not so severe as it would appear. A famishing people could expect no profit from starving cattle and dying herds. Now they were to receive fodder for their animals, and probably enjoy a partial profit on them, by analogy to what happened to their land and its produce the next year (see vs. 23, 24).
17. For horses. The existence of horses in Egypt proves that the Joseph narrative may not be dated earlier than the Hyksos period, since the horse was unknown there until the Hyksos introduced it (see on ch. 41:43).
For that year. It is not certain which of the seven years of famine is here meant. Some commentators think that the distribution of seed to farmers the following year (v. 23) shows that that was the seventh year of the famine, and the year in which the cattle were exchanged for food consequently the sixth year. However, it is probable that some planting had been carried on during all the years of famine in fields bordering on the Nile, which would render the reference to seed in vs. 23, 24 of no value as evidence that the last year is here meant. Nevertheless, the year referred to in v. 17 probably fell in the latter part of the period of famine.
18. The second year. That is, the second year after their money was gone, not the second year of famine.
19. Buy us and our land. Realizing that their lot as Pharaoh’s serfs would be preferable to that of free but starving citizens, they considered this solution advantageous to themselves as well as to the king. A full stomach was a far happier prospect than starvation.
Although no contemporary non-Biblical records have survived to corroborate the Bible account of the famine, the fact remains that the kings of Egypt enjoyed sole possession of all nonecclesiastical properties after the expulsion of the Hyksos, a situation that did not exist before their arrival. Prior to the Hyksos invasion of Egypt a great proportion of the land was owned by the people, being in the hands of large and small landowners. Concerning conditions during the Hyksos period no records exist, but when that period ended and the monuments began to shed light on the existing situation once more, it is found that all lands and practically all the other property of Egypt had become the monopoly of the crown and the priesthood. The best explanation for this radical change in the social structure of the nation is the Biblical record of Joseph’s administrative measures during the seven years of famine.
21. He removed them to cities. This statement is an accurate translation of the Hebrew text as we know it today. It seems to mean that Joseph distributed, or organized, the population of the land according to the cities in which grain was stored, placing them either in the cities or in their immediate vicinity. However, the LXX and the Vulgate may reflect the original more accurately: “He brought the people into bondage to him for servants.” Since the Hebrew text presumably underlying these early translations would represent the exchange of but two very similar Hebrew letters, the equivalents of d and r, and the addition of another letter, b, it is possible that the LXX and the Vulgate are closer to the original text. Their rendition certainly seems more appropriate to the context. Until the recovery of an ancient Hebrew text of this passage may decide the problem one way or the other, however, it is best to withhold judgment.
22. The land of the priests. The priests formed a most influential and powerful segment of Egyptian society. No Pharaoh ever succeeded in permanently breaking their power, and very few dared to arouse their hatred or even lose their good will. More than half of all the wealth of Egypt was in the hands of the priests. They were tax-exempt throughout Egypt’s ancient history. Even the Hyksos kings did not openly fight the priesthood, though in general they did not worship the national gods. Joseph, who personally did not sympathize with the Egyptian priests, was wise enough not to interfere with the long-established priestly privileges, which guaranteed their support at public expense.
24. Ye shall give the fifth part. The levy of 20 per cent collected during the 7 plentiful years, as an exceptional measure, had not seemed an excessive burden because of the tremendous amount of produce. Henceforth it was to be perpetuated as the regular tax rate, inasmuch as all lands had become the property of the crown.
25. Saved our lives. This acknowledgment by the people shows clearly that the new regulation was not considered harsh or unjust. It is an adequate refutation of the oft-repeated charge that Joseph despoiled the Egyptians of their liberties and reduced a free people to slavery. Slave-owners are usually not content with a tax of 20 per cent on the gross income of their estates. Except for the tax, royal ownership of the lands was more nominal than real. At all events, the tax was not considered exorbitant by the people themselves. They were grateful to be able to remain alive and to retain the use of their animals, houses, and lands, even though it be under the nominal lordship of Pharaoh.
27. Multiplied exceedingly. Since Jacob’s family lived in a fertile region and were amply supplied by Joseph (v. 12), it is not astonishing that they enjoyed an unprecedented period of prosperity. The result was not only an accumulation of wealth but also a rapid increase in population. Thus began the fulfillment of the promise made by God to Jacob at Beersheba (ch. 46:3).
28. Seventeen years. In these verses and in the following chapters the patriarch Jacob’s last days are described. He had lived 77 years in Canaan, 20 in Padan-aram, 33 more in Canaan, and finally 17 in Egypt, in all 147 years.
29. Thy hand under my thigh. Concerning this ancient custom, see on ch. 24:2.
30. Bury me. Though Jacob’s request was due in part to a deep-seated attachment to the ground where his ancestors lay buried, it was chiefly inspired by clear faith that Canaan was the true inheritance of Israel. He knew that his descendants would eventually return to the Land of Promise as their permanent home, and that Egypt offered them but a temporary refuge for the time of their necessity.
31. Upon the bed’s head. This is an accurate translation of the Hebrew text as vocalized by the Jewish scholars, the Masoretes, in the 7th century of our era. The Jewish translators of the LXX of the 3d century b.c., however, whose Hebrew text contained no vowels, took the word mṭh, vocalized by the Masoretes as miṭṭah, “bed,” to be maṭṭah, “staff.” Accordingly, they translated the passage, “Israel bowed himself on the top of his staff.” Since the action of leaning on his staff while doing obeisance to God would be quite as suitable to Jacob’s age and infirmity as turning over and bowing on the head of his bed, and inasmuch as Heb. 11:21 reflects the LXX reading of Gen. 47:31, the latter is probably closer to the meaning of the original than the extant vocalized Hebrew text, and therefore preferable. Whatever the exact position of the patriarch, it was a posture of devotion in which he poured out his soul in grateful adoration to God.
1. Thy father is sick. Not long after the visit of Joseph, at which Jacob made arrangements for his burial, Joseph was informed of his father’s final illness. He immediately went to him with his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were between 19 and 25 years of age (see v. 5; chs. 47:28; 41:50; 45:6).
2. And Israel. The change of name from Jacob to Israel is significant here as it was in ch. 45:27, 28. Jacob, the human warrior enfeebled with age, gathered together his remaining strength for a task he was about to perform as Israel, bearer of the gracious promises of God.
3. God Almighty appeared unto me. By way of an introduction to what was to follow, Jacob related experiences of his earlier days, particularly the divine appearance at Luz, or Bethel, after his return from Padan-aram (see ch. 35:9-15). Use of the sacred name, “God Almighty,” the account of the appearance, and the sequence of the different promises related by Jacob show that he did not refer to his dream there on the way to Haran, but to the later vision at the same place after his return to Canaan.
5. Ephraim and Manasseh. Jacob interpreted God’s promise at Bethel as empowering him to adopt the sons of Joseph and give them the same status as his own children. Since God had promised the increase of his seed, and Canaan as their possession, he felt justified in granting to Ephraim and Manasseh each a share in the promised inheritance equal to that of his own sons. Thus “Joseph” would enjoy a double portion.
6. Which thou begettest after them. This privilege was to be restricted to the first two sons of Joseph. Other sons of Joseph are not mentioned in Scripture, but if there were any, their descendants were later included in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, as Jacob predicted. The adoption of his two elder sons placed Joseph in the position of the first-born, so far as the inheritance was concerned.
7. Rachel died by me. Joseph’s mother, who had died so early, was also honored, posthumously, in the adoption of Joseph’s two elder sons. This accounts for the allusion made here by Jacob to his beloved Rachel. His words seem to express an unspoken wish that she might have lived to see her first-born son exalted to lordship over the world’s greatest empire of the time, and thereby in a position to become a savior to his father’s house.
8. Who are these? The failing sight of the patriarch (see v. 10) was probably the reason why Jacob did not recognize his grandchildren sooner. The fact that he was not at first aware of their presence shows that the act of adoption was prompted, not by beholding the youths, but by the inward promptings of the Spirit of God.
10. The eyes of Israel. The feeble patriarch, almost blind, may not have seen Ephraim and Manasseh for some years, so that he did not recognize them now that they were once more in his presence.
13. Joseph took them both. Joseph, who had prostrated himself before his father, either in filial reverence or in the realization that his father was speaking under inspiration, now took his two sons from between the knees of Israel, who had been sitting with the youths between his knees and embracing them. He took Ephraim, the younger, on his right hand, and Manasseh, the elder, on the left, so that Ephraim stood at Jacob’s left hand and Manasseh at his right.
14. His right hand. This is the first Scriptural record of the imposition of hands being a symbol of blessing. Though not essential to the transmission of blessing, the act is not without an appropriate fitness as being a symbol of the invisible fact. Accordingly, it became the recognized mode of conveying spiritual powers, or gifts. This procedure was employed in the OT period for the dedication of Joshua (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9), as in the time of the NT church for the ordination of officers (Acts 6:6; 8:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), and in the performance of many miracles (Mark 6:5; 8:23, 25; Acts 9:17; 19:6; 28:8).
15. He blessed Joseph. By the imposition of hands Jacob transferred to Joseph, through his sons, the blessing he besought for them from God.
16. The Angel. Here placed on an equality with God, “the Angel” could not possibly be a created being, but must be the “Angel of God,” meaning God manifested in the form of an angel (see Ex. 32:34; Isa. 63:9; 1 Cor. 10:4). To the more fully developed revelation of the writers of the NT, He is the “Word,” the “Shepherd,” and the “Redeemer,” Jesus Christ. Both Jacob and Job (Job 19:21) reveal acquaintance with this Divine One, who delivered them from ill, both temporal and spiritual, and who would complete His work of liberation by freeing them from the power of the grave. The Redeemer to whom Jacob and Job looked forward, and of whom both Moses and the prophets testified, was Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 10:4; Gal. 3:13; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18).
Let my name. By this Jacob meant that Ephraim and Manasseh were to be counted as Jacob’s sons. Thus they would become in a special sense recipients of the blessings promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
18. Not so, my father. Assuring Joseph that Manasseh, the elder of the two, would also become a great nation, Jacob stated emphatically, however, that Ephraim would become even greater, a “multitude of nations,” or, more literally, a “fullness of nations.” This blessing began to meet its fulfillment from the time of the judges onward, by which time the tribe of Ephraim had so increased in extent and power that it took the leadership among the northern ten tribes, and its name acquired equal importance with the name Israel (see Isa. 7:2; Hosea 4:17; 13:1; etc.). At the time of Moses, Manasseh numbered 20,000 more than Ephraim (Num. 26:34, 37). Subsequent history shows that this promise was from God, and that the blessing of Jacob was not merely the pious wish of a dying grandfather but the actual bestowal of a blessing of definite prophetic significance and force.
22. One portion above thy brethren. The word translated “portion,” shekem, is the same as the name of the city of Shechem, in whose neighborhood Jacob had bought a piece of land (ch. 33:18, 19) and whose population two of Jacob’s sons had massacred. The word shekem means “shoulder” or “ridge.” Since Joseph was later buried at Shechem (Joshua 24:32), and there was a piece of land near Sychar, or Shechem, in the time of Christ which was still considered as that portion which Jacob had given to his son Joseph (John 4:5), it is very probable that this statement of Jacob, by which he presented a piece of land to Joseph, was a play on words. The piece of land that Jacob owned was at Shechem, and was perhaps a ridge or had the appearance of a shoulder, for which reason Jacob called it a shekem, a “shoulder” or “ridge.” The meaning “portion” for shekem is otherwise unattested, and is based entirely on the ancient versions. Shekem may appropriately be rendered “mountain slope” (RSV).
With my sword and with my bow. This is the only place reference is made to warlike acts on the part of Jacob. All other texts referring to the piece of land that Jacob gave to Joseph speak of it as purchased (Gen. 33:18, 19; Joshua 24:32). Since these texts must refer to the same piece of land that Jacob mentioned as having conquered with sword and bow, it must be that Jacob’s property had been taken away from him by the Amorites after he had left the Shechem region (Gen. 35:4, 5). Although the “terror of God” prevented them from attacking Jacob and avenging the massacre of the Shechemites, they seem to have taken Jacob’s estate, so that the patriarch was forced at some later time to rreconquer his property by force of arms. This explanation seems to be more reasonable than that of some commentators who wish to see in Jacob’s utterance a prophecy referring to the future conquest of Palestine in the time of Joshua.
1. Jacob called unto his sons. Jacob now revealed to his 12 sons his spiritual bequest. Solemnly he exhorted them to listen to the things he was about to say. As Isaac, by virtue of divine foresight, had in his blessing (ch. 27) pointed out prophetically to Jacob and Esau the future history of their families, so in broad outline the future of the entire nation, as represented by the 12 sons, was pictured by Jacob. Although the characters of his sons formed the starting point of his prophecies concerning them, the Spirit of God revealed to the dying patriarch the future history of his seed, so that he discerned in the characters of his sons the future development of the tribes descending from them. To each he assigned its position and importance in the nation, with unerring prophetic insight.
In the last days. Literally, “at the end of days.” This is not a reference to the end of this world’s history, as in some other prophetic utterances, nor does it refer merely to the Messianic age as the close of Jewish history. Here it simply means “in the future.”
3. Reuben. Jacob addressed his first prophecy to his first-born son, and clothed it, as he did all the following statements, in poetic garb. Hebrew poetry consists of a rhythmic repetition of thought rather than of sound and syllables. Arranged in poetic form, the blessing upon Reuben would read:
Reuben,
my first-born you, my might,
and first fruit of my strength;
pre-eminent in dignity,
and pre-eminent in power.
Boiling over like water, you shall have no preference,
for you ascended the bed of your father,
then you defiled my couch ([which] he ascended).
4. Unstable as water. Reuben is characterized by a threefold designation: (1) his position in the family as Jacob’s first-born, (2) his relation to Jacob as his might and the beginning of his strength, (3) the natural pre-eminence that belonged to him as the eldest. Nevertheless, the advantages normally accruing to Reuben as Jacob’s first-born were to be taken from him because of the weakness of his character. The word translated “unstable,” literally, “a boiling over” of water, implies, figuratively, giving in to one’s emotions. Another form of the same root word is used in Judges 9:4 and Zeph. 3:4 for frivolity and pride. Jacob thus described the moral weakness of Reuben’s character, by which he forfeited the privileges as a first-born. Though, specifically, his crime consisted in committing fornication with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22), his later history gives evidence of a fundamental instability of character. This basic weakness disqualified him from becoming a leader, for leadership often calls for firmness and determination. As Jacob remembered this heinous deed, and mentioned it in his prophecy, he turned away in indignation, passing from the direct form of address to the third person as he repeated the thought.
Thou shalt not excel. By the withdrawal of the rights of the first-born, Reuben lost the leadership of Israel. His tribe never attained a position of influence in the nation (see Deut. 33:6). Not one prominent personality emerged from the descendants of Reuben—no judge, no king, no prophet. Leadership was transferred to Judah, and the double portion to Joseph (1 Chron. 5:1, 2).
5. Simeon and Levi. They were brothers, not merely in the flesh, but also in their thoughts and actions (see ch. 34:25).
Their habitations. The meaning of the word translated “habitations” is obscure. Other suggested translations of this uncertain Hebrew word are “machinations,” “joining,” “rage,” “swords.” It is clear, however, that Jacob had in mind their wantonness in treacherously massacring the population of Shechem (ch. 34:25-29), a crime of which Jacob never approved.
6. They slew a man. Here, “man” is a collective term for the plural “men.” The singular form is used indiscriminately throughout the Hebrew OT for both the singular and the plural.
Digged down a wall. Literally, “they hamstrung an ox.” The singular “ox” stands for the practically unused plural “oxen,” found but once in the Bible (Hosea 12:11), and corresponds to “man” in the first line of the parallelism. To hamstring an animal is to render it lame by cutting its tendons (see Joshua 11:6, 9; 2 Sam. 8:4). In Gen. 34:28 it is merely stated that the cattle of the Shechemites were carried off, not that they were lamed. However, since the sons of Jacob were more concerned about revenge than booty, they probably mutilated some animals as well. Jacob mentions only the former, because it was this which most strikingly displayed their brutality. This trait disqualified them for leadership.
7. I will divide them. Since the brothers had committed this crime jointly, their posterity was to be divided, or scattered, in Canaan. They would not constitute independent tribes. The fulfillment of this prediction was evident by the time Israel returned to Canaan. When Moses numbered Israel the second time, Simeon had become the weakest of all the tribes (Num. 26:14), and in Moses’ blessing, Simeon was entirely passed over. This tribe received no separate assignment of territory as an inheritance, but merely a number of cities within the borders of Judah (Joshua 19:1-19). Since the families of Simeon, generally, increased but little (1 Chron. 4:27), most of them were eventually absorbed into the tribe of Judah. Others migrated, in two waves, to areas beyond the borders of the Promised Land (1 Chron. 4:38-43).
Instead of a territorial inheritance, Levi received 48 cities, scattered throughout the other tribes (Joshua 21:1-42). The scattering of Levi in Israel, however, was changed into a blessing for all, through the election of the tribe to the priesthood. Though Jacob withdrew the rights of the first-born from Reuben, and uttered a curse for the crime of Simeon and Levi, he disowned none of them. Levi’s later history is an illustration of how a curse can be fulfilled and yet result in blessing for all concerned. At Sinai, Levi’s descendants stood alone for right when all the others fell (Ex. 32:26), and were therefore appointed, as a tribe, to religious leadership. Though the curse of Jacob, that they should receive no inheritance, was not changed, its fulfillment brought blessing to them and to their brethren (Num. 18:20).
8. Judah. Jacob’s fourth son was the first to receive a rich and unqualified blessing, one which bestowed upon him supremacy and power. Though not expressly so stated by Jacob, Judah received the right of the first-born to leadership, forfeited by Reuben because of emotional instability, and by Simeon and Levi because of their cruelty.
Thy brethren shall praise. According to ch. 29:35 the name Judah means “the praised one.” By a play on words, so dear to the Oriental heart, Jacob assured Judah of the praise of his brethren. Judah had shown a noble character. Even in the dark hour when Joseph’s brothers were plotting to kill him, Judah had proposed a solution that saved Joseph’s life (ch. 37:26, 27). The excellency of his character was illustrated, moreover, in the offering of his own life as a pledge for that of Benjamin, and also when he pleaded with Joseph on Benjamin’s behalf, to save him from slavery (chs. 43:9, 10; 44:16-34). It had been apparent even earlier, in his conduct toward Tamar (ch. 38:26), though originally he seems to have been a rather wild and reckless individual (see on ch. 38:7-26). His own personal strength of character, acquired by stern victories over natural tendencies, was reflected in the virility of the tribe that bore his name.
Thy father’s children. Having prophesied that Judah would put his enemies to flight, and subdue them, Jacob asserted once more that Judah’s brothers also would do homage to him. It is noteworthy that not merely the sons of his mother were to do so (see Gen. 27:29; Judges 8:19), that is, the tribes descending from Leah, but “the sons of his father,” or all the tribes of Israel. This came true when David was crowned king over all Israel (2 Sam. 5:1, 2).
9. Judah is a lions whelp. By a bold figure of speech Judah is compared to a young lion growing up into the full strength and ferocity of an old lion (see Rev. 5:5). Roaming through the forests in search of prey, returning to his mountain lair when his booty has been devoured, he lies there intrepid, in quiet majesty, and calmly defiant of any creature that might presume to disturb him. Many commentators have understood the Hebrew word translated “old lion” to mean “lioness,” and have seen in it a deeper meaning. However, the word labi’ means only “lion” and is a common synonym for the word ’aryeh, “lion,” used twice in the same verse.
10. The sceptre. The scepter is a symbol of royal authority. In its earliest form it was a long staff that the king held in his hand when speaking in public assemblies, but that rested between his knees when he sat upon his throne. Such scepters are depicted in various ancient Egyptian reliefs. Judah was to continue as leader among the tribes until the time of the coming of the Messiah.
Until Shiloh come. Neither the explanation of Shiloh as a place name nor the interpretation as “rest” is convincing. However, the majority of commentators have believed Shiloh to be a personal name, and agree that the person referred to is the Messiah. This view, expressed long ago by both Jewish and Christian scholars, is correct (see DA 52). As to the exact significance of the word Shiloh, however, interpreters are by no means agreed. It has been variously explained to mean “offspring,” “the one sent out,” “he to whom it [the scepter of the kingdom] belongs,” and “the rest giver.” The last interpretation of the word Shiloh, as “rest giver,” is favored by more commentators than any of the others and is endorsed by Ellen G. White (DA 52). Shiloh, therefore, is the Messiah, who in Jacob’s prophecy was to take over Judah’s royal prerogatives as leader of Israel and to whom all nations would gather.
11. Binding his foal. The reference to the riding of the Messiah on an ass was fulfilled at the triumphal entry of Jesus (Matt. 21:7). It designates him as a harbinger of peace, and as a nobleman, since assess were not used for warfare but served as riding animals for persons of superior rank (Judges 1:14; 10:4; 12:14). Judah’s vine would be so strong that asses might be bound to it, and so fruitful that its juice could be used to wash one’s garment. Judah’s wine and milk would be so exhilarating and invigorating as to impart a sparkling brilliance to the eyes and a charming whiteness to the teeth. This is, of course, a highly figurative picture of Judah’s prosperity.
13. Zebulun. The territory allotted to the tribe of Zebulun under Joshua may be ascertained from the boundaries and towns mentioned in Joshua 19:10-16. At that time it neither reached to the Mediterranean nor touched directly upon Zidon. It lay between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean, near to both, but separated from the former by Naphtali and from the latter by Asher. This prophecy may have found its fulfillment, however, at some later time. The remarkable fulfillment of all Jacob’s prophetic utterances that can be checked excludes the possibility that this one should have remained unfulfilled, though the Bible is silent on the point.
14. Issachar. The comparison of Issachar to a bony and strongly built ass, particularly well adapted for carrying burdens, pointed to the fact that this tribe would content itself with material good, devote itself to agriculture, and not strive for political power. It indicated also that the descendants of Issachar would be men of strength and would receive a pleasant inheritance. This was fulfilled in the allotment to it of lower Galilee, including the attractive and fruitful tableland of Jezreel. Although the tribe once acquired renown for heroic bravery, together with Zebulun, during the time of the judges (Judges 5:14, 15, 18), it was generally content with its lot, whatever happened to the nation. It is seldom found coming valiantly to the forefront and fighting for threatened rights or liberties. This was perhaps the reason Issachar is mentioned last among the sons of Leah, though he was not her last son.
16. Dan. By a play on his name the first-born son of Rachel’s maid, Bilhah, is described as one who was to occupy an important place and perform important duties in the future state of Israel. This was partially fulfilled in the latter time of the judges, when Samson, a Danite, judged Israel for 20 years (see Judges 13:2).
A serpent by the way. This statement describes the character of the tribe. It became apparent in the expedition of a portion of the Danites to Laish in the north of Canaan (see Judges 18), and was apparent also in the adventures of Samson, who with the cunningness of a serpent overthrew his strongest foes. Since the tribe of Dan seems to have been the first to introduce idol worship into Israel (Judges 18), and since his character would not qualify anyone for admission to the heavenly Canaan, the name of Dan alone, among the 12 tribes, is omitted from their enumeration in Revelation 7.
18. I have waited. Not only was this prayer voiced by Jacob on his own behalf, but it expressed confidence that his descendants also would receive the help of God, as he had in his own life. It is interesting to watch the dying patriarch in this last tense hour of his life. Although most of his words seem to have been spoken by inspiration, this prayer evidently expresses his own natural feelings. A sudden relief from tension or a sudden accident may reveal the level of one’s spiritual attainment. From one man’s lips a curse will be forthcoming, from another’s an empty and meaningless expression, and from still another’s a prayer may come. It is often unjust to judge a man by the words spoken in an unguarded moment, but Jacob would stand such a test. The years of the deceiver were long past; now he belonged to the company of God’s chosen ones.
19. Gad. This poetic passage, in which the words translated “troop” and “overcome,” from the same root, occur, might better be rendered, “An attacking force shall attack him, but he shall attack the heel.” The language seems to refer to attacks that the tribe of Gad would have to endure with patience, but that they would successfully repel. Although the known history of the 12 tribes does not provide a specific fulfillment of this prophecy, the account given in 1 Chron. 5:18-22 shows that the Gadites displayed, wherever it was needed, the bravery promised them by their father. The Gadites who came to David are described as lions, and their swiftness is compared to that of the gazelle (1 Chron. 12:8-15), which comparisons prove that they were a valiant tribe.
20. Asher. This refers to the fruitful soil that was to be Asher’s future region of abode. In fulfillment of this prediction Asher received as his inheritance the lowlands of Carmel on the Mediterranean, as far as the territory of Tyre. This is one of the most fertile parts of Canaan, abounding in wheat and oil, with which Solomon supplied the household of King Hiram (1 Kings 5:11).
21. Naphtali. The meaning and allusion are obscure, and little is known of the history of the tribe of Naphtali. In association with Zebulun, under Barak it obtained a great victory over the Canaanite king Jabin, which the prophetess Deborah commemorated in her celebrated song (see Judges 4, 5).
He giveth goodly words. This must be an allusion to a gift in eloquence and song manifested in that northern tribe, though no historical records of such activity in the tribe of Naphtali have survived.
22. Joseph. Whereas Jacob’s blessings regarding the four sons of the concubines were especially brief, and his prophecies in part as obscure as the later history of the tribes that descended from these four men, a great difference is found in the blessing upon the first-born son of his beloved Rachel. Now the patriarch’s heart swelled with grateful love, and in the most expressive words and figures he besought unlimited blessing for Joseph.
23. The archers. From the simile of the fruit tree Jacob passed next to one of war, describing the victory of the tribe of Joseph over all its foes. This is an illustration of the prophetic present, which speaks of future events as already in process of fulfillment. The words are not to be referred to any warlike deeds of Joseph in Egypt, but probably hint, in terms not directly offensive to his brothers but understood by all of them, to the persecution he had suffered at their hands as well as during his years of slavery and imprisonment.
24. The mighty God of Jacob. If the last clause is parenthetical, as in the KJV, it may signify either that from the time of Joseph’s exaltation he became the shepherd and the stone of Israel, or that from God, the Mighty One of Jacob, Joseph received strength to become such. In this capacity he then served as a type of the Good Shepherd, who is the Rock, and would become the foundation of His church. If, however, the clause, “the shepherd, the stone of Israel,” is coordinate with the preceding phrase it applies to God Himself. In that case the sentiment is expressed that the hands of Joseph were made strong by the One who is the Shepherd and Stone of Israel (see Deut. 32:4). The Hebrew text permits the second interpretation, which seems preferable to the first.
26. The blessings of thy father. The blessings that the patriarch implored for Joseph were to surpass the blessings that his parents had passed on to him. Joseph is referred to, literally, as “the separated one,” the nazir. Joseph is so designated, both here and in Deut. 33:16, on account of the preservation of his virtue and piety in heathen Egypt.
27. Benjamin. The warlike character that the dying father here attributed to his youngest son was later manifested by his descendants. It was seen in the war that his tribe waged against all the tribes, a war due to their own wickedness in Gibeah (Judges 20, 21), and upon other occasions as well (Judges 5:14). The Benjamites were distinguished archers and slingers (Judges 20:16; 1 Chron. 8:40; 12:2; 2 Chron. 14:8; 17:17). Also, from the tribe of Benjamin came the heroic judge Ehud (Judges 3:15), and King Saul and his valiant and chivalrous son Jonathan (1 Sam. 11, 13; 2 Sam. 1:19-27).
28. The twelve tribes. Jacob blessed the future tribes in the persons of his 12 sons. No one was excepted, and even Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, though humbled because of serious personal faults, each received a share in the promised blessings.
29. Gathered unto my people. See on ch. 15:15.
Bury me. Joseph had already promised his father, under oath, to fulfill this desire. Jacob mentions it once more, in the presence of all his sons, as an invitation to them to participate in the rite of burial.
33. Gathered up his feet. Jacob now lay down, for he had been sitting upright while blessing his sons, and died in peace. Concerning the poetical euphemisms for death, see on chs. 15:15 and 25:8. Jacob’s age at death, as given in ch. 47:28, was 147 years.
1. Joseph fell upon his father’s face. Joseph had no doubt closed the eyes of his beloved father, as God had promised (ch. 46:4). That only Joseph’s grief is described in this passage does not imply that the other sons did not sorrow for their father. Perhaps their grief was less demonstrative than that of Joseph, since the heart of Joseph appears to have been peculiarly susceptible to tender emotions. The grief of Joseph is representative of the grief of all, and we may assume that their sorrow was just as real.
2. Embalmed Israel. The ancient Egyptian method of embalming has been described, both by Herodotus (ii. 86) and by Diodorus (i. 91). The accuracy of their descriptions has been confirmed in the main by ancient Egyptian documents and by an examination of the mummies themselves. The process was expensive, costing as much as $1,000. The brain was first extracted through the nostrils by means of a crooked piece of metal, and the skull was then thoroughly cleansed of any remaining portions by rinsing it with drugs. Through an opening in the left side made with a sharp knife, the viscera were removed and placed in separate jars, the so-called canopic jars. The empty abdomen was purified with palm wine and an infusion of aromatics, and then filled with various spices. After the opening had been sewed up, the stuffed form was submerged for many days (up to 70) in a bath of natron solution. Then it was washed, wrapped in a linen shroud, smeared over with gum, and finally painted to resemble the natural features of the deceased.
3. Forty days. It is known from Egyptian documents that the length of the period from the death of a man to his burial varied. In one case the embalming occupied 16 days, the bandaging 35 days, and the burial 70 days, 121 days in all. In another case the embalming occupied 66 days, preparations for burial 4 days, and the burial itself 26 days, in all 96 days. Elsewhere we are told that the embalming lasted for 70 or 80 days, and the burial 10 months (see E. A. W. Budge, The Mummy). The time involved depended upon the wealth of the family of the deceased and the period of Egyptian history. Jacob, being the father of the prime minister, received the best care of the time. His embalming continued for 40 days, and the preparations for his burial another 70 days. This was proclaimed an official period of mourning.
4. The house of Pharaoh. It has been a matter of conjecture among commentators why Joseph, at the end of this period of mourning, did not place his request before the king personally, rather than through other courtiers. His reasons for this apparently strange procedure are unknown, but it may have been perfectly normal in his time. Some have suggested that Joseph did so in recognition of the courtiers and to earn their good will. Perhaps the men through whom Joseph addressed the king were priests, and as such directly concerned with the interment of the dead. It is possible that Joseph, having allowed his beard and hair to grow, incident to the customs of mourning, could not enter the king’s presence without first being shaved. The suggestion made by some, that Joseph’s authority had been restricted after the famine, or that another Pharaoh who was less friendly to Joseph had come to the throne, is without foundation. Jacob’s death was mourned by the Egyptians, and this would not have been the case had the popularity of Joseph waned. Again, Joseph’s procedure of approaching the king through mediaries may have been due to nothing more than the Oriental tendency to transact important personal business through a middleman.
5. In my grave. Jacob’s claim to have dug the tomb in which his grandfather Abraham had been interred, has been criticized as a contradiction of facts presented in ch. 23. However, it is not necessary to assume that Jacob here attributed to himself what had really been done by Abraham. Jacob may either have enlarged the original cave at Machpelah to make room for additional bodies or prepared in it the special niche he intended to occupy. Or, the expression may simply be Joseph’s way of informing Pharaoh that the burial would not take place in Egypt, but in Canaan, and that therefore permission was requested to go thither.
7. Joseph went up. The king’s permission having been granted, the corpse was carried to Canaan, attended by a large company. With Joseph, there went up the leading officers of the court, together with all members of the family. As an escort through the desert and into the foreign land of Canaan, a large company of chariots and horsemen probably accompanied them. The splendid retinue of Egyptian officers may be explained, in part, from the esteem in which Joseph was held in Egypt and, in part, from the fondness of the Egyptians for such funeral processions.
10. The threshingfloor of Atad. The threshing floor was a large open area for the trampling out of grain by oxen, and was most convenient for the accommodation of a large body of people such as accompanied Joseph. Atad was either the name of the owner or, since ’aṭad is the Hebrew name for buckthorn, it may have indicated that buckthorn grew abundantly.
Beyond Jordan. The funeral procession did not take the shortest route, by Gaza, through the country of the Philistines, nor through Beersheba, but around the Dead Sea. The reasons for this long detour are unknown, but may have been political. Very little is known of the general relations between Egypt and Palestine during the period of the Hyksos, and a state of insecurity in southern Palestine may have been responsible for the extraordinary route Joseph took to reach Hebron.
There they mourned. Sculptured reliefs and painted murals in ancient Egyptian tombs reveal that the Egyptians were very demonstrative and vehement in their public lamentations for the dead. They rent their garments, beat their breasts, threw dust and mud on their heads, and chanted funeral hymns to the music of a tambourine from which the tinkling plates had been removed.
11. The name of it. When the procession made a halt of seven days at the threshing floor of Atad (v. 10), for a special mourning, the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside were much impressed by the way the Egyptians mourned the father of one of their dignitaries. This unusual event was the reason the Canaanites of that region called the place Abel-mizraim, the “meadow of Egypt.” This name represents a play on the words “mourning,” ’ebel, and “meadow,” ’abel, both having the same consonants.
13. His sons carried him. It seems that the Egyptians remained at the threshing floor of Atad, while Joseph and his brothers proceeded alone to Canaan for the burial of their father, in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron. For the history of this burial place, see on chapter 23.
14. Joseph returned. The time had not yet arrived for the descendants of Jacob to settle permanently in Canaan. They were first to become “a great nation” (ch. 46:3).
16. Thy father did command. Joseph’s brothers were now filled with alarm, fearing that he might avenge himself for their cruelty. They thought that Joseph’s tender love for his aged father might have restrained him from taking revenge so long as he lived. Literally, “they charged Joseph,” meaning they sent one of their number, possibly Benjamin, to appeal to Joseph to honor the desire expressed by their father before his death and to implore forgiveness. There is no reason for regarding the appeal to their father’s wish as a mere pretense. The fact that no reference was made to their sin by Jacob in his blessings proves that he, as their father, had forgiven the sin of his sons, in view of the fact that the grace of God had made their crime the means of his family’s salvation.
17. Joseph wept. Inasmuch as the brothers did not personally appear before Joseph, it would perhaps be better to translate, “Joseph wept at their address to him.” He was hurt that they should for a single moment have entertained such a misconception of his love.
18. His brethren also went. Assured that Joseph had no intention of taking revenge, they dared to meet him personally, offering themselves as his slaves. But any thought of revenge was far from Joseph’s thinking. The spirit of his inner life was permeated with forgiveness. Though acquainted by experience with human treachery, he had never entertained any thoughts of bitterness or hatred. He hastened to assure his brothers that they had nothing to fear of him, but could trust him completely.
22. Joseph lived an hundred and ten years. Since Joseph had been born when his father was 91 years of age (see on chs. 27:1; 47:9), he was 56 at his father’s death, and consequently outlived his father by 54 years.
23. Joseph saw Ephraim’s children. It is not certain whether Ephraim’s great-grandchildren or his grandchildren are meant. In the second commandment of the Decalogue the expression “third and fourth generation” (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 5:9) apparently includes the fathers, and means the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is used in the same sense in Num. 14:18. However, in Ex. 34:7, where the following sequence is given, fathers, children, children’s children, third and fourth generation, the latter two generations obviously refer to great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren. Since sometimes the father is included in the number of generations mentioned, and sometimes excluded, it is uncertain, in Joseph’s case, what was meant. At the same time it is perfectly clear that Moses desired to show that Joseph lived to see the beginning of the fulfillment of his father’s blessing. There is no practical difficulty in Joseph’s seeing the great-grandsons of Ephraim. Since his 2 sons were born before he himself was 37 years old (ch. 41:50), he may have had grandsons by the time he was 56 or 60, and great-grandsons 20 years later at the age of 80. Great—grandsons may thus have been born when he was approximately 100 years old.
The children also of Machir. In the case of Manasseh’s children Moses is more definite, stating specifically that Joseph saw his own great-grandchildren.
Upon Joseph’s knees. Literally, “were born upon Joseph’s knees” (see on ch. 30:3).
I die. As Joseph saw death approaching, he expressed to his brothers firm belief in the fulfillment of the divine promise (see chs. 46:4, 5; 15:16). He placed them under oath, that when God should lead them to the Promised Land they would bury his bones there. This desire was carried out. When he died he was embalmed, like his father (see on vs. 2, 3), and placed in a coffin. His body probably was accorded a temporary burial in a previously prepared tomb, according to Egyptian custom, and remained in Egypt until the time of the Exodus. At that time the Israelites, fulfilling his desire, carried his remains to Canaan and buried them at Shechem, in the piece of land that had been bought by Jacob and given to his son Joseph (Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Joshua 24:32).
In an act of faith on the part of the dying Joseph the history of the patriarchal period ends. His coffin, or tomb, became to the sojourners in Egypt a constant reminder of the promises of God, that their permanent abode was to be the land of Canaan and not Egypt. It remained a standing exhortation to them to turn their eyes from Egypt to Canaan, and to wait in patience and faith for the fulfillment of the promise God had made to their fathers.
1. Now. From the Hebrew particle we, which is more commonly translated “and.” This is the first instance of its use at the beginning of a book. All but four of the historical books of the OT open thus.
The children of Israel. On the names of Jacob’s sons, see on Gen. 29:32 to 30:24; 35:18; 46:8-26; 49:3-27.
5. Seventy souls. The record of the few who migrated with Jacob to Egypt is given here by way of emphasizing the remarkable numerical increase of the children of Israel during their years of sojourn. This growth was the fulfillment of promises made to Abraham (Gen. 15:14) and to Jacob (Gen. 46:3). On the number 70, in which Jacob himself is included, see on Gen. 46:27.
7. The children of Israel were fruitful. The family of Jacob increased miraculously, both during the lifetime of the 12 patriarchs and after their death. The blessings pronounced upon mankind at creation (Gen. 1:28) and the promise later made to Abraham (Gen. 22:17) were now realized in appreciable measure.
The land was filled. This refers particularly to the land of Goshen, where the Hebrews lived (Gen. 47:11). The climate of Egypt, the fertility of the soil, the natural virility of the Hebrew race, and the blessing of God together resulted in an extraordinary growth in population.
8. A new king. Not merely another individual but a new dynasty. Since this commentary adopts the mid-15th-century dating of the Exodus, it can be assumed that Joseph lived during the Hyksos rule in Egypt (see on Gen. 39:1; also pp. 191 ff., 492). Accordingly, the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, who freed Egypt from Hyksos rule, were the Pharaohs of the oppression.
The Hyksos were Asiatic people like the Hebrews, and though Egyptianized they would be friendly toward Joseph and his family. But the expulsion of the Hyksos led to a new spirit of nationalism, and all foreigners were viewed with suspicion, especially those favored by the Hyksos. The contribution made by Joseph to the welfare of the people would be forgotten, primarily because he was an Asiatic and the minister of an alien king. The generation that had experienced the seven years of famine had died, and the descendants of Jacob’s sons were confronted with an entirely new situation, a native Egyptian population and a dynasty that hated the Israelites.
9. He said. “He” would be an early Eighteenth Dynasty king, either Ahmose, the great liberator of Egypt, or his son Amenhotep I (1546-1525 b.c.), in case he was not the same individual as the king living at the time of Moses’ birth. However, if he was the king in whose palace Moses was brought up, then Thutmose I (1525-1508 b.c.), the father of Hatshepsut, is meant.
Unto his people. The king was undoubtedly conferring with his ministers and counselors. In the few documents that shed some light on the war of liberation, the statement is twice made that the kings Sekenenre and Kamose called their counselors together before taking action. Although Kamose had already made up his mind, and did not follow their counsel, he did discuss the matter with his ministers.
More and mightier. Pharaoh was probably exaggerating, since Egypt had been a great nation for centuries. It was the sort of exaggeration in which unprincipled persons indulge by way of justifying an extreme and unreasonable course of action.
10. Let us deal wisely. Pharaoh suggested a clever political expedient to avoid the danger of revolution and the possibility that the Israelites might make common cause with his enemies, the Hyksos, and then leave Egypt. It probably was not so much the conquest of his kingdom which he feared as an alliance with his enemies. Among the Hebrews were many skilled workmen, and Pharaoh therefore proposed to retain them as slaves that he might employ them on his various construction projects. It may be that he adopted this policy toward the Hebrews either during or soon after the revolt against the Hyksos, their racial relatives.
11. Taskmasters. Literally, “superintendents of [forced and unpaid] labor.” Pharaoh hoped that oppressive treatment would break the physical strength of the Israelites and retard their remarkable increase in numbers. He expected, furthermore, to crush their spirit of independence and self-respect. Finally, he would be able to carry out his vast construction projects without laying a burden on his own people.
Treasure cities. Since the land of Goshen was situated in the eastern Delta, Pharaoh set the Israelites to work on temples and other government buildings in the eastern border region. In ancient times national wealth was often stored in temples, presumably under the guardianship of the gods.
Pithom. This name has been explained as a Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian Per-Atum, “House of [the sun-god] Atum.” Some scholars have identified it with the present Tell el-Maskhuta in the Wadi Tumilat, about 12 mi. west of Lake Timsah in the eastern Delta region, where Naville uncovered great storehouses for grain, in 1883. Finding that this city had been built by Ramses II, to whom the name of the second city seems to refer, Naville believed him to be the Pharaoh of the oppression. In this view Naville has had many followers. Others have identified Tell el-Maskhuta with the Biblical Succoth (ch. 12:37), whence the Israelites departed from Egypt, inasmuch as inscriptions reveal that the Egyptian name of the place had been Tjeku. Until more definite evidence comes to light, however, the location of Pithom remains uncertain.
And Raamses. This city was identified by Flinders Petrie with Tell el-Retabeh in the Wadi Tumilat, 8 mi. to the west of Tell el-Maskhuta. Other scholars, however, would identify “Raamses” with Tanis, the Biblical Zoan (Num. 13:22), formerly called Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos. Long after their expulsion from Egypt, Ramses II enlarged and beautified it, and named it after himself.
Ramses II, however, cannot have been the Pharaoh of the oppression. Biblical chronology of the period from the Exodus to the monarchy of Israel requires at least a 15th-century date for the Exodus (see 1 Kings 6:1), which therefore took place two centuries earlier than the reign of Ramses II. The name of the store city here called “Raamses” is to be understood as the modernization of an older name. Another illustration of this practice occurs in Gen. 47:11, where the land of Goshen is called “the land of Rameses.” No one will advocate that the entry of Jacob into Egypt took place under the reign of Ramses II; therefore, the old name of the region called “Rameses” in Gen. 47:11 appears to have been dropped in favor of a more modern one (see on Gen. 47:11). The ancient city of Laish, also, is called Dan in Gen. 14:14 (see on that text), although it received this name many centuries after both Abraham and Moses were dead. The most reasonable explanation for these and other texts in which modern city names are applied in the narrative to earlier times is to assume that later copyists exchanged older, obsolete names for more modern ones, in an attempt to clarify the narratives for later generations.
12. The more they multiplied. Pharaoh’s first plan did not accomplish its purpose. The Hebrews increased in numbers proportionate to the degree of oppression, and the Egyptians were naturally dismayed at such unprecedented growth. It became apparent that persecution and trials could not thwart the purpose of God, and measures intended to destroy His people proved to be a source of greater strength.
They were grieved. The dismay of the Egyptians was due to the failure of their scheme. The presence of an enemy within their borders that could not be subdued was embarrassing and irritating.
14. Made their lives bitter. Undaunted, the Egyptians put forth yet greater effort to enslave Israel. Verses 13 and 14 do not record a new oppression, but the continuation and intensification of the program of hard labor already in force.
In morter, and in brick. While stone was the material chiefly employed by the Egyptians for their great temples and other public buildings, brick was used to a large extent for palaces and lesser buildings, for city walls, for forts, for temple enclosures, and for storage houses such as those mentioned in v. 11.
All manner of service. The Hebrews had originally been employed to tend the royal flocks and herds (Gen. 47:6), but later took up agricultural pursuits as well (Deut. 11:10). There is no country where painstaking care and labor are so constantly required throughout the year as in Egypt. The annual flooding of the Nile necessitates extreme watchfulness, to save cattle and to prevent the inundation of houses and villages and the washing away of the river embankments. Cultivation is continuous throughout the year, and success depends on a system of irrigation that requires constant labor and unremitting attention. If the “service in the field” included also the digging of canals (Josephus Antiquities ii. 9.1), the lives of the Hebrews would indeed have been made bitter. To work under the hot Egyptian sun, with no shade and scarcely a breath of wind, from sunrise to sunset, and with the feet in water (Deut. 11:10), is a most grueling experience. When Mehemet Ali built his Alexandrian canal, about the middle of the 19th century, he lost 20,000 laborers out of 150,000. The percentage of loss may have been about the same in ancient times. But so far as Pharaoh was concerned, the more the Hebrews perished, the better it suited his evil purpose.
15. Spake to the Hebrew midwives. Pharaoh’s second attempt to control the increase of the Hebrews made no pretense at concealing his real objective. From cruel oppression he went to open murder. It has been questioned whether the midwives were actually Hebrews, since in that case the king could not be sure of their cooperation. The phrase translated “Hebrew midwives” may also be rendered, “midwives of the Hebrew women,” meaning midwives who attended the Hebrew women at childbirth. But their names are definitely Semitic and not Egyptian, Shiphrah meaning “beauty” and Puah, “splendor” or “brightness.” This confirms the KJV rendering (see on v. 17).
16. The stools. Literally, “two stones.” Various unconvincing explanations of this term have been given, none of which need be repeated here inasmuch as its real meaning has been discovered by the Egyptologist Spiegelberg. In Egypt, birthstools consisting of either two stones or stones laid in the shape of a horseshoe were used. The common Egyptian expression, “to sit on the bricks” for “giving birth,” as found in various ancient inscriptions, reveals the meaning of the king’s words, “Watch them when they are on the two stones.” The use of this Egyptian expression confirms the Mosaic authorship of Exodus.
If it be a son. It was a common practice throughout the ancient world to expose unwanted children by leaving them to die, or more commonly, to be devoured by birds or wild animals. The command of the king also reflects the pagan custom of killing all enemy males and forcing the women and girls to become household slaves of the conquerors. In many ancient wars of conquest the entire male population was thus put to the sword. Pharaoh apparently intended to make use of living males for the specific building projects he had in mind, but to let the Hebrews die out as a people with that generation. He planned thus to rid himself of a potential enemy within his borders, and at the same time provide a supply of female slaves for Egyptian households.
17. The midwives feared God. Clearly, the midwives were Hebrews, for they “feared God” and knew that He had forbidden murder. Though they may not have been acquainted with the words of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, “Thou shalt not kill,” they were familiar with the regulation, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6). Fearing God more than they feared the tyrant king (see Acts 4:19; 5:29), these courageous women dared ignore the royal command. The fear of men makes a man the victim of circumstances, but the fear of God brings rest in the midst of tumult and peace in the face of mortal danger. This must have been the experience of the two chief Hebrew midwives, upon whose shoulders lay a grave responsibility.
19. The Hebrew women. The Hebrew women were no doubt required to labor in the fields along with the men. Since they were accustomed to toil in the open air, it is not unlikely that childbirth was comparatively easy for them. Arabic women, related racially to the Hebrews, lead strenuous lives and require but little assistance in childbirth. This fact explains the plausibility of the excuse offered Pharaoh by the Hebrew midwives. There is no evidence that their story was questioned in any way.
They are lively. Literally, “They are vigorous.” The result was that the midwives were seldom called. There was little demand for their services, since any female relative or acquaintance could usually provide all the assistance necessary. This may explain why only two midwives were needed by the Hebrews, in spite of their large numbers.
21. Made them houses. God rewarded the midwives for their faithfulness by giving them families and preserving their posterity. That this is the meaning of the expression is clear from parallel texts in which it is used in this sense (see Ruth 4:11; 2 Sam. 7:11, 27). By ignoring the ruthless command of the king they had helped to build up the families of Israel, and their own families were therefore built up by God. They had risked their own lives to save their people.
22. Pharaoh charged all his people. The failure of all his plans to weaken the Hebrew people drove the king to acts of open violence. This new decree placed a responsibility on every Egyptian to make the desire of the king his own. The task of exterminating the Hebrews was now shifted from the taskmasters and the midwives to the common people.
Every son. It has been argued that the great number of Israelites at the Exodus precludes any such murderous command ever having been issued. However, it is probable that many Egyptians, who may not have been hostile toward the Israelites, ignored it, or that it remained in force but a short time. Pharaoh may have rescinded the edict upon realizing more fully the advantages to be derived from free slave labor, or as his building plans grew in extent. Since there were so many able-bodied men leaving Egypt 80 years later, this cruel requirement cannot have continued in force for long.
The objection is sometimes raised that it is most unlikely any monarch would have ordered such wholesale and cold-blooded destruction of innocent children. It is to be observed, however, that in ancient times human life, particularly that of anyone of another race or nation, was lightly regarded. It was a common thing to massacre prisoners taken in war, to annihilate entire populations, and to sacrifice unwanted children to the gods.
1. There went a man. Inasmuch as Aaron was older than Moses by three years (ch. 7:7), and seems to have been born before the royal decree went into effect, this Hebrew expression should be rendered “a man had gone.” The decree must therefore have been issued about the time Moses was to be born. The marriage of Moses’ parents probably took place more than a decade before this fateful decree was given, since Miriam was old enough by the time of his birth to play the role described in vs. 4, 7, and 8.
A daughter of Levi. Although in Hebrew usage “daughter” may actually mean “granddaughter,” Jochebed was apparently Levi’s actual daughter (see on Ex. 6:20). Her husband was Amram, a son of Kohath (Ex. 6:18) and grandson of Levi (v. 16). Since Kohath was born before Jacob moved to Egypt (Gen. 46:11), it is probable that Kohath’s sister, Jochebed, who married her brother’s son, Amram, was born much later (see Num. 26:59). The chronology of the sojourn in Egypt (see on Ex. 12:40) renders such a conclusion necessary inasmuch as Moses was born 135 years after Jacob’s entry into Egypt. Jochebed, the mother of Moses, must therefore be considered a child of her father’s old age.
2. A son. Moses was Jochebed’s third child, for Aaron was three years older than he (ch. 7:7), and Miriam was still older (ch. 2:4).
A goodly child. Even as a babe Moses gave evidence of the keen intellect, emotional stability, and also the physical perfection that marked his later years. All of this is implied in the Hebrew word translated “goodly.” Jochebed saw in these qualities a token of divine approval, which she took as a sign that God had marked out some special task for him. According to Acts 7:20 he was, literally, “attractive [“beautiful,” RSV] to God.” This is rendered in the KJV as “exceeding fair.” Jochebed would of course have loved and protected Moses even if he had not been so “goodly” a child, for mothers often devote their deepest love to weak and sickly children. However, Jochebed’s efforts to preserve the life of Moses are praised in Heb. 11:23 as an act of faith, and this implies awareness on her part that God had destined him for an important role and would therefore intervene to preserve his life. This, however, does not necessarily confirm a statement by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities ii. 9. 3) that it had been revealed to Amram before the birth of the child that he was appointed to be the savior of Israel.
3. An ark. After the baby had been hidden for three months, for some reason unknown to us it seemed practically impossible to conceal him longer. Believing that God would intervene for the preservation of his life, his mother devised a plan whereby she might comply with the letter of the king’s command and yet not take the child’s life. She would do all she could, and trust God for the rest.
The two words translated “ark” and “bulrushes” are both Egyptian, and together with many others found in the Pentateuch show that the writer was intimately acquainted with the Egyptian language. The word tebah, “ark,” was derived from the Egyptian tebet, and is used in the Bible only here and in Gen. 6 and 7, for Noah’s ark. Meaning literally a “box,” it might describe any boxlike container.
The word gome, “bulrushes,” is from the Egyptian qama’. It designates the papyrus plant, famous in antiquity as the chief material from which ancient writing paper was made. The papyrus plant is a sturdy rush with a triangular stem from 10 to 15 ft. in height. Though common in ancient Egypt, it is no longer found there. The papyrus was also employed for building purposes and in the construction of lighter river boats. Such vessels are pictured on many ancient Egyptian monuments, and may have provided Jochebed a model for making Moses’ ark.
Slime. The same word as that used in Gen. 11:3 for asphalt or bitumen, which was imported into Egypt from the region of the Dead Sea. By the Egyptians it was used largely in embalming the dead.
In the flags. Suph, from the Egyptian tjufi, meaning “reed,” is the third word in this verse borrowed from that language. Water plants of all kinds abound in the backwaters of the Nile and in the marshy tracts connected with it. Jochebed’s objective in placing the ark in a thicket of reeds was probably to prevent it from floating away. Some commentators have suggested that Jochebed knew the place to which the Egyptian princess was accustomed to come and placed it there with the hope that her pity might be aroused at the sight of the beautiful and helpless babe (see PP 243).
4. His sister. That is Miriam (see Ex. 15:20, 21; Num. 12:1; PP 243). She seems to have been Moses’ only sister (Num. 26:59).
5. The daughter of Pharaoh. In Jewish tradition she is called Thermouthis, Merris, or Bithia. The diversity of the names and their absence from Egyptian records renders the tradition worthless.
A reasonable deduction from Biblical chronology based on 1 Kings 6:1 and other supporting statements (see GC 399) is that the Exodus took place about the middle of the 15th century b.c. This date leads to the conclusion that Moses grew up under Thutmose I (1525-1508 b.c.), Thutmose II (1508-1504 b.c.), and Queen Hatshepsut (1504-1482 b.c.). Hatshepsut was a remarkable woman. She had been the only legitimate child of Thutmose I and was married to her half brother Thutmose II in order that he might legitimately succeed his father upon the throne. But the legitimate marriage of Thutmose II, like that of his father, again failed to provide a male heir. When Thutmose II died, after a reign of only four years, the priests of Amen, in a sudden coup, crowned an illegitimate son of Thutmose II, who was at that time a mere boy and served in the temple as a minor priest. Inasmuch as Thutmose III, as he was later known, was too young to reign, his aunt Hatshepsut acted as regent for 22 years. Her reign was a peaceful one. She built great temples and erected huge obelisks. Expeditions were sent to Punt, probably the coast of Somaliland in East Africa, for trading purposes, and to Sinai and Nubia to mine copper, turquoise, and gold. Supported by a powerful prime minister, Senenmut, Hatshepsut occupied the throne for 22 years; then she and Senenmut disappear from the record. Succeeding her, Thutmose III erased her name from all monuments in an attempt to eradicate the memory of her from the history of Egypt. This fact lends weight to the supposition that he removed her from the throne, and that she and Senenmut died violent deaths.
When Moses was born Hatshepsut was merely the daughter of Thutmose I. Moses’ birth occurred many years before her marriage to her half brother Thutmose II, and more than 20 years before she began her personal reign, after the death of her husband.
To wash herself. Angels led the princess to where Moses lay (PP 243). That a princess should bathe in the open river is certainly not in accord with the customs of the modern Mohammedan East, where it is now done only by women of the lower class. But it was in harmony with the customs of ancient Egypt. A bathing scene from an ancient Egyptian tomb pictures an Egyptian woman of rank attended by four female servants. It is also in agreement with the views held in ancient Egypt about the sanctity of the Nile, and that its water imparted fruitfulness and guaranteed a long life. It was for this reason that the Nile was worshiped as a god.
6. One of the Hebrews’ children. Upon opening the little ark the princess recognized in the crying babe a child of the Hebrews. Compassion for the helpless child and sympathy for his unknown Hebrew mother prompted her to save him by adopting him as her own. In the comment on ch. 1:22 it was observed that the cruel edict of the king probably did not long remain in force. The event here described may have been instrumental in bringing about a change. Distressed by the sad lot of the Hebrew children, the daughter of Pharaoh may have implored her father to revoke his murderous edict. If this be true, Moses had already become the passive means by which the lives of countless Hebrew children were saved.
7. A nurse. All had doubtless been arranged by the mother. Miriam was stationed near the place where Moses was floating, to watch her little brother’s fate, and had probably been instructed what to say in the event some Egyptian should find the baby. Now she carried out her instructions with admirable judgment and tact. She appeared on the scene at the right moment and offered her proposal at the proper time, neither too soon nor too late. In doing so, she said neither too much nor too little.
8. The maid went. The faith and resourcefulness of a loving mother and the tact and skill of a prudent sister were crowned with success. Not only was Moses’ life saved but he was, as well, returned to his own cradle and to the bosom of his own mother. In this way provision was made that he might receive from her those first impressions which are so indelibly fixed upon the mind of a child.
9. Thy wages. Since the babe, a Hebrew child, was placed in a Hebrew home, provision must be made to clarify the supposed relationship of Jochebed to him as his nurse. To signify clearly that he had become the property of Pharaoh’s daughter, to silence inquiries as to his origin and the reasons for his being kept alive, and to seal the lips of informers who might wish to see him killed, as other Hebrew boys were, the princess indicated the wages she would pay for the care given him.
The woman took the child. It is significant that Jochebed is not here called Moses’ “mother” but simply “the woman.” It would seem that neither by word nor by deed did she betray her real feelings nor reveal her actual relationship to the child. What self-control that impassioned hour must have required, no tongue can tell. She took the child as a stranger might have taken it, yet in her heart there was passionate joy and gladness. Had she relaxed her vigilance but for an instant, excitement might have disclosed her purpose. Everything depended on her remaining calm under the most difficult circumstances—but love can endure all things. The great question underlying all service is not so much one of the intellect as of the heart, buoyed up by God’s sustaining power.
10. The child grew. Jochebed had saved her son’s life by transferring her rights as mother to Pharaoh’s daughter. Now she received him back, on loan as it were, and merely as a nurse hired for his years of infancy. She gave him up that she might keep him, lost him that she might find him again, stooped that she might conquer. The time the child was with its mother, not stated in the Bible but given as 2 or 3 years by most commentators, was actually about 12 years (PP 244). During these years of childhood the foundations of character and later religious experience were laid. Instruction neglected now could not be made up later. Moses’ afterlife shows clearly that his parents used well the years allotted them for bringing him up in the way in which he should go.
She brought him. Many commentators have expressed the view that Moses’ mother took her son to the palace of her own volition as soon as he was weaned, at the age of perhaps two or three years. As noted above, this actually occurred at about the age of 12. The idea that she surrendered him voluntarily is based on the absence of any indication that she was forced to give him up. Unless she took him to the palace at a time previously agreed upon, to do so on her own initiative would seem to show a strange lack of motherly affection. Would Jochebed have given up a son she loved so dearly without being required to do so? She must have kept him as long as she could. Her surrender of Moses at the age of 12 would imply that her term of service as “nurse” was to expire with the close of what was generally considered the period of childhood (see PP 244).
Moses. Mosheh is comparable to the Egyptian mes or mesu, meaning “child,” “son,” “the one born of.” During the Eighteenth Dynasty, under which Moses was born and brought up, it was customary to select for members of the royal family, names designating them as offspring of the gods. Names such as Ahmose, “The one born of [the moon-god] Ah”; Kamose, “The one born of the [deified soul, the] Ka”; Thutmose, “The one born of [the god] Thoth”; and the common name Ramose (later Ramses), “The one born of [the sun-god] Ra”; were in everyday life often abbreviated to “Mose.” Students of Egyptology would say that Pharaoh’s daughter gave the child she adopted a name similar to Thutmose or Ahmose, of which that part referring to a heathen deity was dropped by Moses when he “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (Heb. 11:24). Again, she may have omitted the title of any god and instead given him only the abbreviated name “Mose,” since she neither knew his earthly parentage nor could claim that, as a Hebrew, he was the son of an Egyptian god. However, it is probable that the name she gave the child was Egyptian, though the form in which we know it today is Hebrew.
Drew him out. The name Mosheh means, literally, “one drawn out.” It is the participial form of, and has the same consonants as, the verb mashah, “to draw out.” Since the Egyptian name Mose and the Hebrew verb mashah were similar in sound and related in meaning, the Hebrews may have transliterated Mose as Mosheh. Thus it would conform to the statement of the Egyptian princess, “Because I drew him out of the water.” This statement implies that she accepted him as a gift to her from the river god, the Nile. In the Egyptian pantheon the Nile was deified as Hapi, though the stream itself was known as ’Itru, later simply as ’Iru. This the Hebrews transliterated as Yeor, and with one exception (Dan. 12:5-7) Bible writers use it exclusively (49 times) in referring to the Nile and its tributaries (see Gen. 41:1; Isa. 7:18; Eze. 29:3; Nahum 3:8; etc.). Originally, Moses’ name in Egyptian may thus have been Hapmose or ’Irumose, meaning, “The one born of [Heb., “drawn out of”] the Nile.” In refusing “to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (Heb. 11:24), he would naturally drop the reference to an Egyptian deity.
Translators of the LXX rendered his name Mouses. In explanation of this name, Josephus (Antiquities ii. 9. 6) explains Mo as an Egyptian name for the Nile, and uses as Egyptian for anyone “drawn” or “saved” out of it. According to this explanation, then, Moses would mean, “The one saved out of the Nile,” a most appropriate name for one destined to save his people from the land of the Nile. It is not clear, however, whether Josephus’ explanation is based on fact or on wishful thinking.
11. When Moses was grown. The Sacred Record passes over almost 30 years of Moses’ life in silence. The next recorded event is of an incident that took place when he was 40 years old (Acts 7:23). The years of his youth were spent under royal tutors, who imparted to him “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). Some of his education he received from the priests, and some from army commanders. Such was the training ordinarily given a royal prince. Since Moses was “mighty in words and in deeds” (Acts 7:22), it would not be amiss to assume that he led important military expeditions to foreign countries (see PP 245). However, he did not become an Egyptian at heart. His outward appearance, his dress, his speech, and his behavior may have been completely Egyptian, but he remained a Hebrew in character, religion, and loyalty. This is clear from the events narrated in Ex. 2:11-13 (see Heb. 11:24).
He went out. Moses had come to the point in his life when he realized that he must either become an Egyptian, without reservation, or side with his despised people. It seems that prior to this occasion he had made the decision “to suffer affliction with the people of God” (Heb. 11:25) and considered himself the chosen instrument for this task (Acts 7:23-25). He thought himself ready at last to leave the court with its “pleasures of sin,” to abandon the prospect of succession to the throne, and to step forth boldly to champion the cause of his oppressed people (see PP 246, 247). From Acts 7:23 it is clear that Moses went to the land of Goshen for the purpose of studying the situation and laying plans. That in his mind he had relinquished all claim to the throne of Egypt is evidence that his motives were not selfish. He was impelled, rather, by sincere love for his people and hatred for their oppressors, a fact emphasized by the term “brethren,” used twice in Ex. 2:11.
He spied an Egyptian. This was probably one of the taskmasters mentioned in ch. 1:11 or one of the overseers employed by them. Such persons are represented on Egyptian monuments as armed with long wooden sticks, which they used freely on the backs of idlers. Their authority was no doubt frequently abused, and chastisement was no doubt inflicted for the slightest fault or for no fault at all. Authority often degenerates into tyranny and cruel oppression, and as an instance of such abuse of power this incident excited the anger of Moses (Acts 7:24).
12. Slew the Egyptian. Observing that there were no others to witness the deed, he killed the Egyptian. That the overseer continued beating the Hebrew workman as Moses approached shows that higher officials generally approved of such abuse of authority on the part of their subordinates. Moses’ action cannot be condoned, though it was no doubt prompted by righteous indignation. Although an able military leader and a favorite with the armies of Egypt (PP 245), he was lacking in certain qualities of leadership essential for service in the cause of God (PP 247).
13. The second day. This was the following day (Acts 7:26). Moses hoped the Hebrews would accept his leadership and support him in a general uprising against the Egyptians (PP 246). Though it had been revealed to the elders of Israel that Moses was to be their deliverer (PP 245), “they understood not” (Acts 7:25). The fact that he spent more than one day among his own people suggests that this was more than a casual visit. His return to the vicinity of the incident suggests that he considered the time ripe for revolt.
Wherefore smitest thou? The strife Moses witnessed upon his second visit among his people was one in which blows were exchanged, and he felt it his duty to persuade the two men to refrain from further combat. By interposing here Moses certainly did what was right.
14. Who made thee a prince? It was not his interference now but his wrong act of the day before that exposed Moses to rebuke. There was no assumption of judicial authority in the mere inquiry, “Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?” unless it be coupled with the deed of the proceeding day. The violence of one day had rendered ineffective the kind persuasion of the next. The influence for good that the education and position of Moses might have enabled him to exercise upon his nation was lost by the very act to which he had been urged by his sympathy for them.
Moses feared. Having renounced his allegiance to Egypt by his deed the day before, to be rejected now by his own people left Moses in a dangerous predicament. He was alone and without friends.
15. Pharaoh heard. If our identification of Pharaoh’s daughter with Hatshepsut is correct, this event must have taken place during the last years of her regency, when her nephew’s authority had increased and shortly before he deposed her and formally ascended the throne as Thutmose III. Moses’ deed was correctly interpreted at court as marking open defiance of Egypt, and it was surmised that he purposed to seat himself upon the throne (PP 247). The fate of the nation was clearly at stake, and Moses was forthwith condemned to die. For nearly 40 years Hatshepsut had sponsored Moses at court, perhaps in spite of misgivings on the part of other members of the royal family, and by arranging for him to ascend the throne no doubt planned to solidify her own control over the nation. Her sudden disappearance from history about this time may have been due to her known support of Moses.
Moses fled. Moses’ flight was certainly not an easy one. The eastern border of Egypt was guarded from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez by a system of manned towers, each in sight of the next. An Egyptian story parallel to the flight of Moses, that of Sinuhe, shows how difficult an escape into Asia really was. Sinuhe, a courtier of King Amenemhet I, for some reason unknown to us, felt at the king’s death that his own life was in danger, and accordingly fled to Syria, where he spent many years as an exile. He gives a vivid description of the dangers connected with crossing the frontier. Crouching for some time in a bush, lest the watchmen see him, he crossed at night. Pressing on into the desert, he would have perished of thirst except for certain Asiatics who found him and gave him water and boiled milk to drink. We have no record of the hardships Moses suffered during his flight, but it is not amiss to assume that it was a trying experience for one who had thus far known only the luxuries of court life and was unacquainted with hardship.
The land of Midian. This is a somewhat vague expression, since the Midianites were nomads. Their principal settlements appear to have been on the eastern side of the Gulf of ‘Aqaba, where most of their ancient inscriptions have been found. But from time to time they migrated northward to the borders of Moab (Gen. 36:35; Num. 22:4, 7) and westward into the Sinai Peninsula, which appears to have been “the land of Midian” to which Moses fled (see Ex. 3:1; PP 247).
16. The priest of Midian. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25:1, 2), and may have remained worshipers of the true God for some time. Reuel, at least, with whom Moses made his abode (Ex. 2:18, 21), was a priest of the true God (ch. 18:12, 23; see PP 247).
Seven daughters. This is not the first instance in the Bible story in which women are found pasturing the flocks of their father. Rachel kept her father Laban’s sheep and watered them (Gen. 29:9). Such a practice agrees well with the simplicity of primitive times and peoples, nor would it be regard as strange in Arabia even at the present day.
18. Reuel their father. Reuel means “friend of God” and implies monotheism. The KJV transliterates his name as Raguel in Num. 10:29, though the Hebrew spelling does not differ from that given here. Reuel was also known as Jethro (Ex. 3:1; etc.). Various other Bible characters were known by two names, such as Solomon, whose second name was Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:24, 25).
19. An Egyptian delivered us. Apparently Moses had not revealed his nationality, and since he wore an Egyptian costume and shaved his head like an Egyptian, Reuel’s daughters naturally took the friendly stranger for an Egyptian. Reuel’s astonishment at their early return and their matter-of-fact explanation that an Egyptian had defended them from the shepherds show clearly that they were used to this rough treatment and that their father was in no position to protect them. As a priest he seems not to have had much influence with the shepherds of the region. This may have been because Reuel was still a worshiper of the true God, though most of his fellow tribesmen had left the religion of their ancestor, Abraham, to worship idols.
21. Moses was content. Moses had fled from Egypt without any definite plan except to save his life, and was now confronted with the practical problem of earning a living. Reuel’s hospitable welcome, a result of Moses’ friendly act of assistance at the well, led to an arrangement whereby Moses entered into his service.
Zipporah. In course of time Zipporah, one of the seven daughters of Reuel, became Moses’ wife. This name, meaning “bird,” is still borne by many women of the Arabian Desert.
22. Gershom. Meaning “banishment,” from garash, “to drive” or “to thrust away.” Moses explained the name by referring to the fact that he was “a stranger [ger] in a strange land.” Though he had saved his life, he was living in exile, and gave expression to his feeling of loneliness and humiliation in naming his first son.
Once again many years are passed over in silence. A former prince of the most powerful royal house of the time was passing his days as a shepherd. He had exchanged his palace for a tent, the luxuries of Egypt for the desert life of Sinai, his host of attendants and his army for a flock of sheep and goats. What a change! Yet 40 years spent in the wide spaces of the desert made of him the sort of man God could use in the deliverance of His people from Egypt. During these years Moses learned lessons essential to him as the leader of a rebellious nation. The qualities Moses developed during his long years of desert life, alone with God and nature, were priceless, and well worth the long solitude and humiliation required to gain them. His later history shows that those years had not been lost, but that he had been a diligent student under the tutorship of God and had graduated from his course with honors.
23. In process of time. This expression covers a period of about 40 years (Acts 7:30).
The king of Egypt died. Thutmose III, from whom Moses had fled, died about 1450 b.c., after a sole reign of 32 years, which in turn had been preceded by a coregency with Hatshepsut lasting possibly for 22 years.
The children of Israel sighed. The death of Thutmose III brought no respite from oppression, but seems to have made it even more severe. Ancient Egyptian documents reveal that Thutmose III was succeeded on the throne by his son Amenhotep II, who proved to be a cruel king and a ruthless conqueror. Early in his reign he returned from an Asiatic campaign with seven Canaanite princes as captives. Sailing up the Nile to his capital, Thebes, he suspended these princes from his ship with their heads down. When he reached Thebes, he hanged six of them on the wall of the city, and carried the seventh to the Nubian capital, Napata, where he received the same treatment. Amenhotep II secured the obedience of his subjects at home and in conquered lands by an administration of calculated frightfulness. His character, as revealed by secular records, agrees well with that of the stubborn Pharaoh who intensified the oppression of the Israelites when Moses interceded in their behalf at the time of the pouring out of the plagues.
25. God had respect. True to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God remembered His oppressed people. Because they were the object of His special regard, God entered upon a miraculous course in order to accomplish His merciful purpose with regard to them. Human expressions used to describe the attitude and acts of God may at times seem unworthy of an eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent being. It should be remembered, however, that finite words give, at best, an imperfect picture of the will and ways of the Infinite One.
1. Jethro. Another name for Reuel (see on ch. 2:18).
On his priesthood, see ch. 2:16; on the location of Midian, see ch. 2:15.
The backside of the desert. Mt. Horeb must be sought in the central part of the Sinai Peninsula (see on p. 509), and according to this verse Jethro’s home was separated from it by a desert. His home must therefore have been to the east or southeast of Horeb, and not to the northeast, as some have thought. Only thus is it possible to explain the following two facts: (1) When Moses returned from Midian to Egypt he went by way of Horeb, where Aaron, coming from Egypt, met him (ch. 4:27). (2) No Midianites were encountered by the Israelites on their journey through the desert, although the homeward road of Hobab, the Midianite, separated from theirs when they departed from Sinai (Num. 10:30). The word translated “backside” sometimes means “west,” as in the RSV of Judges 18:12; Eze. 41:15; Zech. 14:8; Isa. 9:12. This was due to the fact that the Hebrews customarily faced the east when giving directions, and west was therefore “behind” them as east was “before.” This is clear from the LXX of Isa. 9:12. It is further evidence that Horeb lay to the west of Jethro’s home. The word translated “backside” is rendered “west side” in the RSV.
The mountain of God. Exodus was written after the manifestation of God to Israel at Horeb, which gave it the name “Mount of God.” Horeb and Sinai are two names for the same mountain (see Ex. 19:11; Deut. 4:10). Since the 5th century a.d., Horeb has been identified with one of the mountain peaks in the south central part of Sinai called Jebel Musa, “the Mount of Moses.” It is c. 7,500 ft. high and rises some 1,500 ft. above the surrounding valleys. It has been observed, however, that this mountain is invisible from the largest plain of the neighborhood, the er-Raha, which has been considered the “desert of Sinai” (ch. 19:2). This plain offers space for a great number of people, and with some smaller valleys tributary to it has a number of water springs. However, Ras es-Safsaf (c. 6,600 ft.), another peak of the same mountain, overlooks the plain er-Raha. For this reason many scholars who accept the traditional identification of the plain er-Raha with the desert of Sinai, believe that Mt. Sinai is to be identified with Ras es-Safsaf rather than with Jebel Musa.
Others have identified the mountain of the law with the Jebel Serbal, which lies some 15 mi. to the northwest of Jebel Musa, the most impressive mountain of the whole Sinai Peninsula. Jebel Serbal, with a height of only c. 6,750 ft., is far from being one of the highest mountains of the area, but it rises steeply out of the Wadi Feiran, which has an average elevation of only 2,000 ft. It is the great difference in altitude that accounts for the impressiveness of Jebel Serbal. This is one of the reasons why some scholars see in it the Horeb, and in the Wadi Feiran the “desert of Sinai” of Exodus. The second reason is that the tradition connecting Jebel Serbal with Mt. Sinai seems to be earlier than the one identifying Jebel Musa with Mt. Sinai. Since no definite evidence exists to support either identification, it cannot now be determined whether Horeb is Jebel Musa, on whose slopes is the famous monastery of St. Catherine, where Tischendorf found the Codex Sinaiticus, or the neighboring Ras es-Safsaf, or even Jebel Serbal.
2. The angel of the Lord. The context (vs. 4-6, 14) makes it clear that this “angel of the Lord” was the Lord Himself, the second person of the Godhead (see PP 252, 311, 366). Already in Abraham’s time the Lord had revealed Himself under this form and name (see Gen. 22:11).
A flame of fire. The Hebrew text reads literally “out of the midst of the bush,” not that there was only one bush near Mt. Horeb, but rather that it was the only bush to which particular significance attached. The burning bush was an appropriate visible representation of the message God there imparted to Moses. In contrast to the more noble and lofty trees (Judges 9:15), the thorn bush may be compared to the people of Israel in their humiliation, despised by the world. The fire, burning but not consuming the bush, may be thought of as representing the refining affliction of slavery. But the bush was not consumed; and in the chastening flame the Lord does not give His people over unto death (Ps. 118:18).
5. Draw not nigh. As Moses approached the bush he did not expect to receive a vision, nor was he yet conscious of the presence of God. Therefore, when he drew near to examine “this great sight” (v. 3), he was admonished to remain at a safe distance from the bush.
Put off thy shoes. Since shoes such as we know today were worn neither by the Egyptians nor by the inhabitants of the eastern desert, it is more correct to translate the Hebrew word na‘al by “sandal.” The practice of putting them off before entering a temple, a palace, or even private houses has ever been a universal custom in the Near East. Since shoes or sandals carry dust and other impurities, the reverential Oriental mind considered it sacrilegious to enter a clean or holy place with shoes on. The same command given Moses at this time was later repeated to Joshua (Joshua 5:15).
Holy ground. The place where Moses stood was holy, not because it was an old sanctuary or sacred spot previously unknown as such to him, as some commentators have thought, but because of the presence of God.
6. The God of thy father. The transition from the “angel of the Lord” (v. 2) to the “Lord,” Jehovah (v. 4), and then to “God” (vs. 4, 6) precludes the idea of Jehovah’s being merely a national God, as higher critics have alleged. It shows that the three expressions are more or less synonymous. After acquainting Moses with the fact of His presence, God introduced Himself as the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In this way God reminded him of the promises made to the patriarchs, which He was about to fulfill to their seed, the children of Israel. In the expression “thy father” the three patriarchs are classed together as one, because of the personal relations enjoyed by each of them with God, and the promises each received directly from God.
Moses hid his face. The glory of the holy God no sinful man can bear; hence it was only natural for Moses to hide his face. Elijah later did likewise at the same place (1 Kings 19:13), and even the holy angels before God’s throne in heaven do so (Isa. 6:2).
8. Bring them up. Literally “up,” for that part of Palestine which they were to occupy lies at a much higher level than Egypt. Biblical writers were careful to indicate such differences in elevation by such expressions as “going up” or “going down” (see Gen. 12:10; 13:1; 37:25; 39:1; 42:2; 46:3, 4; 50:25).
A good land. The land to which the Israelites were to be taken “up” is called a “good land” on account of its great fertility (see Deut. 8:7-9), and “large” in contrast with the land of Goshen. Even though the fertility of Palestine did not equal that of Egypt, it was still great. The rich soil east of the Jordan produces enormous crops of grain in the spring and provides pasturage throughout the year. The western region is less productive, but when carefully cultivated bears excellent crops of olives, figs, and barley. From a modern point of view Canaan seems a small country, being not much larger than the State of Vermont in the United States and somewhat smaller than Belgium in Europe. But to the Israelites of the time of Moses it seemed spacious, being considerably larger than the entire Delta region of Egypt, of which they had occupied but a small part. The land promised in the covenant God made with Abraham (Gen. 15:18-21) and actually possessed by David and Solomon (1 Kings 4:21) included not only Palestine but a considerable area of Syria as well (see The Great Empires During the Sojourn in Egypt).
A land flowing with milk and honey. Used here for the first time but common in later books (Num. 13:27; Deut. 26:15; 31:20; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; Eze. 20:6; etc.), this was a proverbial expression for a land of plenty, and should not be pressed for a precisely literal meaning. It was intended as a figurative description of the great fertility and natural loveliness of the land of Canaan. Milk and honey are the simplest and choicest productions of a land abounding in grass and flowers, and were found in Palestine in great abundance.
The place of the Canaanites. For an explanation of the origin and history of the different nations mentioned, see on Gen. 10:15-17. The enumeration of the nations of Palestine here made is incomplete, only five of the ten whose land was promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:19-21) being expressly mentioned. One, however, that of the Hivites, is added. It is possible that they had succeeded the Kenizzites or the Kadmonites of Abraham’s time.
11. Who am I? A great change had come over Moses. Forty years earlier he had volunteered as a deliverer. He had gone to his brethren and slain one of their oppressors, expecting that they would understand “that God by his hand would deliver them” (Acts 7:25). However, at that time he was not qualified for the position of leadership to which he aspired, nor were the children of Israel ready for deliverance. The 40 years in Midian had taught him humility and filled him with utter distrust of self. The adopted prince of Egypt’s royal house had become a shepherd, following a pursuit despised by the Egyptians (Gen. 46:34), and felt so uncertain of himself as to fear Pharaoh. What influence could he, a despised shepherd from the eastern desert, expect to have with the mighty king of the most powerful nation on earth? Furthermore, what influence would he have with his own people? They had rejected him when he was a mighty man; would they accept his leadership as a returned fugitive? Thoughts like these may have flashed through Moses’ mind when the call to return to Egypt and deliver his people came to him. His reluctance to accept the call, his distrust of himself and of his people, can be easily understood.
12. I will be with thee. God did not refute Moses’ arguments, but assured him of divine companionship and assistance. No human skill, no earthly power or ingenuity alone, can accomplish what is possible in cooperation with God. No greater promise can come to a leader of God’s people than that given to Moses at the time he was called.
A token. God gave Moses a sign that he was not being sent on a fruitless errand, but it was a sign the fulfillment of which would come later, like that given to Hezekiah by Isaiah (2 Kings 19:29). Before the sign could be fulfilled, however, Moses must obey and carry out the task he was commissioned to undertake.
13. What is his name? On the verge of accepting the divine call, Moses inquired what he was to say in case the people asked him for his divine credentials. The supposition that the people might ask this question is not to be attributed to ignorance of the name of their God. The name by which God had revealed Himself to their fathers could not have vanished entirely from memory, and the mere mention of God’s name could not have been of much help to Moses. However, the nature and power of the One who sent Moses would be expressed in that name, and since names meant so much to the Semite mind, it was important for Moses to reveal to his people the true nature of their God, who was now ready to deliver them from bondage.
14. I am that I am. God therefore revealed to Moses, or rather explained to him, the name by which He had made Himself known to Abraham at the making of the covenant (Gen. 15:7). In Hebrew as in English, this name is a form of the verb “to be,” and implies that its possessor is the eternal, self-existing One (see John 8:58; DA 469). Its all-embracing universality precluded any comparison of the God of the Israelites to the deities of Egypt and other nations. It was designed to provide Moses and his people with strong consolation in their affliction and powerful support for their confidence in the realization of His purpose to deliver them.
I am hath sent me. “I am” is an abbreviated form of “I am that I am,” and is intended to express the same idea.
15. This is my name. From the Hebrew word translated as “I am” comes the derived form Yahweh. Yahweh is rather consistently rendered “Lord,” by the KJV, with the whole word in capital and small capital letters as it appears here. The ASV of 1901 transliterates Yahweh as “Jehovah.” To the Jews this has ever been the sacred name by which the true God is distinguished from all false gods. See pp. 172, 173.
16. Gather the elders. God proceeds to give Moses further instructions with reference to the execution of his mission. On his arrival in Egypt he was first of all to inform the elders, as the representatives of the nation, namely, the heads of the families, households, and tribes, of God’s plan to deliver them. The “elders” were not necessarily men of great age, but those who were recognized as leaders by the people (see chs. 6:14, 15; 12:21).
I have surely visited you. A repetition of the words used by Joseph on his deathbed (Gen. 50:24). They may be taken to mean, “I have done as Joseph prophesied, and you can be sure that everything he promised will come to pass.”
18. They shall hearken. Moses thought that they would despise him, turn a deaf ear to his words, and reject his leadership. But God told him that his reception this time would differ greatly from the one he had received 40 years before. The hearts of men are in God’s hands, and God Himself had directed the affairs of His people in such a way that they would be ready to recognize Moses as God’s chosen instrument for their deliverance.
Now let us go. The request for Pharaoh’s permission to leave the country is phrased so as to express Israel’s precise relation to him. He had no right to detain them, but his consent was needed for their departure as was that of a former king for their settlement in the land of Goshen (Gen. 45:16-20). He had no valid reason for refusing their request to go three days’ journey into the wilderness, for their return at the close of that period was implied in the request. Was this deception? By no means. God knew the heart of Pharaoh and instructed Moses to ask no more at first than he must either grant, or, by refusing, display the hardness of his heart. Had Pharaoh consented, God would probably then have made known to him His design in its entirety and demanded the permanent release of His people. When Pharaoh refused the first, and reasonable, request (Ex. 5:2), Moses was to demonstrate the power of the God of the Hebrews by miracles and judgments. Accordingly, Moses persisted in demanding permission for the people to go and serve their God (chs. 7:16; 8:1; 9:1, 13; 10:3). It was not until the king offered to permit them to sacrifice in Egypt that Moses added to his request the significant phrase, “as he shall command us” (ch. 8:27), which implied that they might not return. Of course, that was what Pharaoh feared.
19. Not by a mighty hand. Pharaoh would not be willing to let the people go even when God’s mighty hand was laid upon him (see chs. 8:15, 19, 32; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27). God foresaw his resistance and planned accordingly. The marginal reading of the KJV, “but by a strong hand,” is based on the LXX and followed by the RSV, but is not favored by the Hebrew text.
20. After that. This statement is not at variance with v. 19. The meaning of vs. 19 and 20 is that Pharaoh would not be willing to let Israel depart even after being smitten by the strong hand of God, but that he would be compelled to do so against his will. Even after the ninth plague Pharaoh still refused to let them go (ch. 10:27), and when he finally gave permission upon the death of his first-born, and in fact drove them out (ch. 12:31-33), he soon changed his mind and pursued them (ch. 14:5-9). The strong hand of God had not broken the king’s will, but was nevertheless instrumental in delivering Israel.
22. Every woman shall borrow. Obviously the Hebrews did not intend to return what they sought to secure from the Egyptians. Hence they have been accused of practicing fraud, and God has been blamed, not only for condoning their act of deception, but for planning and directing it as well. But the verb translated “borrow” should be translated “ask,” as in the RSV. The Israelites were to ask gifts of their Egyptian neighbors as a contribution to the necessary expenses of the long journey. They had toiled for many decades as slaves, to the profit of the Egyptians, whose taxes had been lighter in proportion to the value of the free labor rendered by the Hebrews. The latter were certainly entitled to what would in reality be but a small reward for the long years of labor rendered. The Israelites asked without intending to restore, and the Egyptians granted their request without the expectation of receiving back, because God favorably disposed their hearts toward the Israelites (v. 21). The Egyptians had spoiled the Hebrews, and now the Hebrews carried off the spoil of Egypt as partial compensation (PP 281).
1. They will not believe. Moses’ previous question, following upon God’s promise of guidance and protection (ch. 3:13), had implied willingness to go and a desire for further information. Now it appears that Moses was still very much opposed to the idea of accepting the commission. Attempts have been made to defend him by explaining that he meant, “What if the people will not believe me?” etc. But his statement is emphatic and can neither be translated nor explained in this way. It is conceivable that since Jacob’s entry into Egypt, more than two centuries earlier, no divine revelation had been imparted to Israel, and doubt as to the validity of Moses’ claim to having received a divine commission might therefore easily arise.
13. It became a serpent. Since Moses’ faith was not yet strong enough to rely on the future sign promised him (ch. 3:12), God provided immediate signs by which he might validate his mission. These three signs were intended to convince the Israelites of the fact that God had appeared to Moses, but served at the same time to strengthen Moses’ faith and dissipate his fear of failure. This was to be evidence that God had called Moses to be the leader of Israel and endowed him with the power to discharge this responsibility.
4. By the tail. A snake charmer will usually pick up his serpents by the neck, so they cannot bite him. Moses was instructed to demonstrate his trust in God by taking up the serpent by its tail.
6. His hand was leprous. Leprosy was regarded as absolutely incurable. Its instantaneous appearance and removal were contrary to all experience and would be accepted as evidence of supernatural power. This sign may also have served as a warning that he who resisted or disobeyed Moses would suffer grievous results. While the object of the first miracle was to prove that Moses was the man whom the Lord had called to be leader of His people, the second was to make it clear that as the messenger of God he was granted the power necessary for executing the task.
8. The voice of the first sign. God personified these signs as having a “voice,” for they were to bear witness for Him in the person of His chosen instrument. According to Scripture everything has a “voice,” if we will but listen with our hearts—the day, the night, the heavens, the beasts, the fowls of the air, the fishes, and even the very stones. They cry aloud and lift up their voices, proclaiming the will of their Maker, whether man will hear or whether he will not (see Ps. 19:1-3; Job 12:7, 8; Hab. 2:11; Luke 19:40).
9. The water. Egyptians worshiped the Nile as the source of national prosperity. Power to turn the life-giving water of the Nile into blood would imply power over the gods of Egypt and power to desolate the land of Egypt. From this sign Israel was to learn trust in God, while Pharaoh and the Egyptians were afterward by the same sign to be led to fear Him (ch. 7:15-19). Thus Moses was not only entrusted with the word of God but also endowed with His power. He was the first prophet and worker of miracles to be sent by God to His people, and thus became a type of Christ (Deut. 18:15; John 1:45; Acts 3:22).
10. I am not eloquent. That he who had been “mighty in words and in deeds” (Acts 7:22) should claim difficulty in speaking seems unwarranted, in view of God’s promise to prosper his mission. His long absence from Egypt and the fact that he had not spoken its language during the sojourn in Midian without doubt made him feel unqualified to go before Pharaoh, but he should have been ready to trust in God. It has been suggested that Moses feared to speak in Hebrew because he had been living among the Midianites. This cannot have been the reason, however, since Midianite inscriptions differ but little from ancient Hebrew. The Jewish tradition that Moses had difficulty in pronouncing certain Hebrew letters, has no substantiation either.
12. I will be with thy mouth. God patiently reasoned with Moses as with a friend. He who had made man’s mouth was certainly able to impart the ability to speak fluently.
13. Send, I pray thee. When all the excuses Moses could offer were proved invalid, his hidden motives in making them became obvious. What had at first appeared to be doubt of his own ability was now revealed as distrust of God (see v. 19). For practical purposes he refused to go. His curt, almost rude, answer to the divine commission is even more emphatic in Hebrew than in English.
14. The anger of the Lord. The expression used is strong but probably means no more than that God was displeased. He did not punish Moses otherwise than by dividing between the two men the responsibility Moses was to have had alone.
Aaron the Levite. It is not clear why God here spoke of Aaron as “the Levite.” Some have suggested that there were others by the same name among the Israelites and that this designation was necessary to distinguish him. But it is not clear why the words “thy brother” would not have been sufficient in this case. Others have thought the designation anticipates the future consecration of his tribe to God’s special service.
He cometh forth. It has been suggested that Aaron planned to visit Moses in Midian to inform him of the death of the king from whom he had fled (see ch. 2:15, 23). Under any circumstances, Aaron did not start on his journey until God instructed him to go (ch. 4:27).
16. Thy spokesman. God promised to be with both men—with Moses that he might express accurately what God revealed to him, and with Aaron that he might speak clearly and persuasively. Moses’ position was the more honorable, though Aaron’s may have seemed so to the people.
Instead of God. In ch. 7:1 God promised Moses that his brother should be his prophet or spokesman. Divine inspiration was to rest upon Moses. Aaron was to accept Moses’ words as the words of God and do all that Moses bade him.
17. Take this rod. Moses was bidden to take, not any rod, but the particular one that had already been transformed into a serpent. The plural, “signs,” points to the plagues that were to fall upon Egypt, since only one of the three signs thus far given him was to be performed with the rod.
18. Let me go. Moses did not mention to Jethro the real object of his journey, for fear that Jethro would refuse permission for his wife and children to accompany him, and possibly also that a report of his return to Egypt might reach the court before he was ready to appear there, thus making his mission more difficult.
19. Go, return. As Moses made preparations to return to Egypt, the Lord appeared to him a second time with reassurance that he need not fear for his personal safety, since Pharaoh and all those who had sought his life were now dead.
20. His sons. Moses had two sons (ch. 18:3, 4), Gershom, whose birth is mentioned in ch. 2:22, and Eliezer, who was probably but an infant. The latter seems to have been born since Moses’ return to Jethro’s home, inasmuch as ch. 2:22 speaks of but one son born to him prior to the divine manifestation at Mt. Horeb.
Set them upon an ass. The ancient Egyptians themselves never rode on animals, though they often depicted foreigners, particularly children and noblemen, as riding donkeys. This word picture suggests that Moses had given up his former Egyptian customs and adopted the Semitic way of life.
The rod of God. Moses’ rod (ch. 4:2) had become the “rod of God” as a result of the miracles recorded in vs. 3 and 4.
21. All those wonders. Once more God appeared to Moses, either before he left Midian or on the way to Egypt. Upon this occasion God imparted to Moses information concerning what he must expect in Egypt. The expression “all those wonders” does not refer alone to the three signs mentioned in vs. 2-9, but to all the miracles he was to perform in the presence of Pharaoh.
Harden his heart. In Christ’s parable of the sower and the seed there was no difference between the seed scattered in one kind of soil and that sown in the others, or yet in the manner in which it was sown. Everything depended upon the reception given the seed by each type of soil. In like manner, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was in no way an act of God, but rather a deliberate choice on his own part (see PP 268). By repeated warnings and displays of divine power God sent light designed to point out to Pharaoh the error of his ways, to soften and subdue his heart, and to lead him to cooperate with His will (see DA 322). But each successive manifestation of divine power left him more determined to do as he pleased. Refusing to be corrected, he despised and rejected the light, until he became insensitive to it, and the light was finally withdrawn. It was thus his own resistance to the light that hardened his heart. Even the heathen recognized the fact that it was Pharaoh and the Egyptians themselves who hardened their hearts, and not God (1 Sam. 6:6).
Commentators have differed widely in their understanding of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, here attributed to God. There are altogether ten such statements. Eight of them (Ex. 4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17) use the word chazaq, which means that the Lord would make Pharaoh’s heart “firm” so that it would not move, and that his feelings toward Israel would not change. In ch. 7:3 another Hebrew word, qashah, is used, which implies that the Lord would make Pharaoh’s heart “hard” or “unfeeling.” In ch. 10:1 a third word, kabed, is used, meaning that God had made Pharaoh’s heart “heavy,” or insensible to divine influence. That the different words are used more or less interchangeably becomes evident from a study of the context.
There are also ten statements to the effect that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Four of them (chs. 7:13, 22; 8:19; 9:35) use the word chazaq, “to make firm,” five (chs. 7:14; 8:15, 32; 9:7, 34) the word kabed, “to make heavy,” and one (ch. 13:15) the word qashah, “to make hard.” The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was evident first of all in the fact that he paid no attention to the demand of the Lord to let Israel go. His refusal was not restricted to the plagues the Egyptian magicians were able to imitate, but included those which the magicians themselves acknowledged to be “the finger of God” (ch. 8:19). It continued also after the fourth and fifth plagues, which fell upon the Egyptians but not upon the Israelites, a fact of which the king was informed (ch. 9:7). The hardening of his heart was demonstrated even more clearly when he broke his promise to let Israel go on condition that Moses and Aaron would remove the plague, and when he was forced to confess that he had sinned (ch. 9:27). Thus when Moses was told, before reaching Egypt, that the Lord would harden Pharaoh’s heart (ch. 4:21), God referred to the continued refusal of the king to obey Him and release the Israelites.
God takes no pleasure in the suffering and death of the wicked, but rather desires that all men repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), and causes His sun to shine upon the evil and the good (Matt. 5:45). But as the sun affects different materials in different ways, according to their own nature—it melts wax and hardens clay, for instance—so the influence of the Spirit of God upon the hearts of men produces different effects according to the condition of the heart. The repentant sinner allows God’s Spirit to lead him to conversion and salvation, but the impenitent hardens his heart more and more. The very same manifestation of the mercy of God leads in the case of the one to salvation and life, and in that of the other to judgment and death—to each according to his own choice.
22. Israel is my son. In declaring Israel to be God’s first-born son Moses was to use language familiar to the Egyptian king. Each Pharaoh considered himself the son of the sun-god Amen-Ra.
23. I will slay thy son. For fulfillment of this prediction see ch. 12:29. Moses did not utter this threat till all other means of persuasion had been exhausted, in what he knew to be his last interview with the king (chs. 10:29; 11:4, 5; PP 273). In doing so he apparently carried out one of the many special directives received after his return to Egypt (chs. 6:11; 7:9, 15, 19; etc).
24. In the inn. The translation “inn” is misleading. There were no inns or even caravansaries on the way between Midian and Egypt. The Hebrew word used here has rather the meaning of “a place where the night is spent” (cf. Joshua 4:3, 8; Isa. 10:29). The RSV reads, “at a lodging place on the way.” The incident probably took place at a well or watering place where the family had stopped for the night.
Sought to kill him. Some have thought that Moses had an experience similar to Jacob’s at Peniel (Gen. 32:24-32). Others have suggested that a sudden, severe illness befell him, which he and Zipporah recognized as a punishment of God for failure to carry out one of His commandments. Actually, an angel appeared to Moses in a threatening manner, as if he intended to kill him (PP 255).
25. Zipporah took a sharp stone. Egyptian surgeons commonly used stone knives. According to Joshua 5:2 these were also the usual instruments for performing the rite of circumcision.
Cut off the foreskin. Moses returned to Egypt with his two sons (see Ex. 4:20). Evidently Gershom, the elder, had been circumcised in accordance with God’s instructions to Abraham (Gen. 17:10-14). In the case of Eliezer, the younger son, this rite had been neglected (PP 256). Not believing in the necessity of circumcision, Zipporah had resisted her husband’s intention to circumcise Eliezer at the appointed time. The appearance of the angel made it clear that her opposition did not excuse Moses from administering the rite. Now that her husband’s life was in danger she found it necessary to carry out the operation herself.
A bloody husband. These words are clearly an expression of reproach. They show that Zipporah performed the rite grudgingly, not from a desire to obey God, but of necessity, to save her husband’s life. Her meaning seems to be that Moses was a poor sort of husband, on whose behalf it was necessary to shed the blood of her sons in compliance with a national custom she regarded as barbarous.
26. So he let him go. God accepted Zipporah’s tardy act and restored Moses.
Because of the circumcision. When the angel released Moses, Zipporah repeated her reproachful words, adding in explanation, literally, “because of the circumcisions.” She may have had in mind the one performed in Midian on Gershom as well as that on Eliezer.
27. Go into the wilderness. This instruction to Aaron must have been given some time before Moses left Midian, for they met at Horeb, in the heart of the Sinai Peninsula (see on ch. 3:1), soon after Moses’ departure from his father-in-law. It is equally certain that the directions given Aaron were more complete than the brief record of Exodus indicates. Inasmuch as the wilderness extended from the border of Egypt through the Sinai Peninsula and into Arabia, God must have told him precisely the way he was to take in order to meet his brother.
29. All the elders. As to the elders, see on ch. 3:16. Though Moses and Aaron had no authority to call the tribal and family heads together, these men responded to their invitation.
30. Aaron spake. Aaron entered at once upon the duties of his office as “spokesman” (v. 16), declaring to the elders the fact that God had called his brother to accomplish their deliverance. Aaron also, and not Moses as we should have expected (v. 17), performed the signs (see PP 263). God apparently either ordered or approved this delegation of power. On later occasions we find Aaron more than once required by God to work the miracles (chs. 7:19; 8:5, 16).
31. The people believed. This was another evidence of divine favor. It stands in marked contrast with the usually incredulous attitude of the Israelites, who so often “believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation” (Ps. 78:22). Their longing for deliverance and these manifestations of miraculous power won a favorable response from the elders.
They bowed their heads. The faith of the people, and the worship in which it was expressed, proved that the promise of God to the fathers still lived in their hearts. Though their faith did not stand the subsequent test, yet, as the first expression of their feelings, it bore witness to the fact that Israel was willing to follow the call of God.
1. Went in, and told Pharaoh. After Moses and Aaron had been accepted by the elders of Israel to be their God-appointed leaders, the two men proceeded to Pharaoh and secured a hearing before the king. Ancient records make it clear that it was not easy for a commoner to obtain an audience with the king. Moses’ former experience at court now stood him in good stead, for he knew how to approach the king.
A feast. The request put before Pharaoh was a reasonable one. The Israelites could not offer their sacrificial animals in the presence of the Egyptians without provoking an outburst of religious animosity, since among the animals to be slaughtered were some that the Egyptians considered sacred, and therefore not to be killed under any circumstances. To avoid this danger, the feast of the Israelites must be held beyond the boundaries of Egypt, in the wilderness.
2. Who is the Lord? Pharaoh was either ignorant of the name of the God of the Israelites or pretended to be. However that may have been, he felt himself superior to any foreign God. Had not his father and his grandfather oppressed the Israelites without interference by their God? Why should he trouble himself to take notice of a God so obviously disinterested in the affairs of His own people, and apparently unable to help them?
3. Lest he fall upon us. The refusal of Pharaoh did not frighten Moses and Aaron away, for their trust was in the power of One who would, in time, accomplish His gracious purpose. However, the knowledge that they were allied with divine power did not make them overbearing. They remained polite and considerate, and put forth their best efforts to persuade the king to change his mind. They pointed out how necessary it was for the people to comply with the requirements of their God and to celebrate the commanded feast. Instead of threatening the king with punishment should he persist in refusing to let Israel go, they protested to Pharaoh that punishment would come upon the Israelites should they fail to obey so explicit a command of their God.
4. Get you unto your burdens. Pharaoh would hear nothing of the idea, and made no direct reply to their petition. Suspecting that Moses and Aaron were secretly plotting a revolt from his service, he ordered them back to their tasks as slaves. This shows clearly that Moses’ identity was not recognized. The king did not know that Moses had formerly lived at court, or that his recent place of abode was not Egypt, but the land of Midian.
5. The people of the land. It was as if the king had said, “The common herd are already good for nothing, and you would have them stop working altogether?” Moses and Aaron had instituted a reform in Sabbath observance, and this fact had come to the attention of the king (PP 258). The people were idle and in need of more work to absorb their energies. Thus he reasoned.
6. The taskmasters of the people. The word here translated “taskmasters” is not the same as that of ch. 1:11, and probably designates another class of officers. The “taskmasters” of the former passage were the work superintendents, probably few in number and high in rank, whereas the “taskmasters” here were Egyptians of a lower rank and more numerous. The “officers,” literally, “scribes,” were undoubtedly Hebrews, as is evident from the expression “officers of the children of Israel” used in ch. 5:14 and from the rough treatment they received. They were probably employed as foremen, and had to give an account of the work done.
7. Straw to make brick. Having no intention of being intimidated by the God of the Hebrews, and proud in the security of his own power, Pharaoh was determined to enforce his will. Suspecting that their wish to go into the desert was nothing but an excuse invented by idlers and prompted by a thirst for freedom that might endanger the kingdom, he devised a plan for making the oppression more cruel than it already was.
In ancient Egypt bricks were made just as they are today, sometimes with and sometimes without straw. More commonly, the bricks contained some type of plant binder along with the clay, usually straw, called teben in Biblical Hebrew and tibn in Egyptian Arabic today. The process of brickmaking in ancient Egypt is represented by several models found in Egyptian tombs, and also in a wall painting in the tomb of the vizier Rekhmire, who lived under Thutmose III in the middle of the 15th century b.c. It shows men drawing water from a pool, mixing mud with a hoe, carrying the mixture in jars to the brickmakers, and the brickmakers forming the bricks in wooden molds. A foreman with a stick in his hand watches over the group of workmen. The men carrying bricks are described as “captives which his majesty brought for the works of the temple of Amon.” Some of the captives depicted are Semites and resemble the Hebrews.
Moses does not present the Hebrews as making “bricks without straw,” as is sometimes erroneously stated. Rather, Pharaoh’s decree specifically required them to use straw, but to provide it themselves. Had the Hebrews proceeded to make brick without straw they would have been violating the decree, and this the taskmasters would hardly have permitted. Such bricks would have been decidedly inferior in quality, since chopped straw increases the strength of mud bricks several times. This is due partly to the presence of the straw stalks themselves and partly to the chemical action of decaying vegetable matter upon the brick mixture. When the mixture is allowed to stand for a few days, the bricks are both stronger and easier to make. Some have erroneously interpreted the presence of strawless bricks in the walls of certain ancient Egyptian buildings as evidence confirming the narrative of ch. 5:7, 8. Such reports, however, are based on a misunderstanding of the Bible record and ignorance of the art of brickmaking as practiced in the valley of the Nile (see The Biblical Archaeologist, vol. 13, no. 2 [May, 1950], pp. 22-28).
8. The tale of the bricks. The word here translated “tale” means, rather, “the daily required number,” and indicates that the Hebrews were required to produce a fixed number of bricks every day. Though they were now to procure their own straw, by gleaning it from the fields, the required number of bricks was to remain the same as before.
14. The officers. The Egyptian overseers are regularly depicted with sticks in their hands. One picture from a temple wall of Thebes of the time of Thutmose III shows a taskmaster with a raised stick in his hand, saying to the workmen, “The stick is in my hand; be not lazy.” When the new directive of the king was enforced, it soon became impossible for the Israelites to produce the required number of bricks. Consequently, the Hebrew officers whose business it was to give a daily account of the work done were punished by their Egyptian overlords.
15. Cried unto Pharaoh. The Hebrew foremen apparently had access to the king. When these men were unjustly beaten for their inability to force their people to produce the required “tale” of bricks, they complained to the king, thinking the Egyptian overseers personally to blame.
17. Ye are idle. Pharaoh seems to have been pleased with his happy thought of interpreting as idleness the desire of the Israelites to worship their God. He apparently considered it clever to accuse overworked people of being lazy and of employing religion as an excuse for it.
21. Abhorred. Unkind were the words that the Hebrew foremen spoke to the messengers of God. Words prompted by anger are usually irrational. This may account for their mixed metaphor, alluding to the effect their evil “savour” would have on the “eyes,” instead of in the nose, of Pharaoh. They went even further, figuratively accusing Moses and Aaron of placing a sword in the hands of the Egyptians to slay them. They surmised that Moses and Aaron had led the king and his counselors to suspect them of laziness. To be sure, the foremen had no doubt suffered a severe beating (v. 14), probably administered as a bastinado, the customary form of corporal punishment in Egypt. This beating of the bare soles of the feet is extremely painful, and death not infrequently results from its repeated employment.
22. Moses returned unto the Lord. The two brothers made no reply to the words of the officers. Perhaps their hearts were too full for speech, and they probably did not know what to say anyway. They turned instead to God, their sole source of consolation and guidance.
Lord, wherefore. Moses’ words did not reflect a spirit of displeasure or insubordination, but of perplexity and inquiry. The question and complaint proceeded from a faith that could not understand the dealings of God. At the same time he appealed for help in this hour of need and for the removal of what seemed contrary to God’s nature and His will.
1. Now shalt thou see. Moses did not receive a direct answer to his complaint. Instead, God again promised the deliverance of Israel by a strong hand. Since Moses was not now prepared to understand God’s dealings, no useful purpose would be served by giving him an explanation. As it were, God was saying to Moses, “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter” (John 13:7). In view of the fact that even after their miraculous deliverance from Egypt and their glorious march through the desert, in which the Hebrews beheld so many proofs of the power and mercy of God, and yet repeatedly rebelled against Him, they would hardly have been willing to leave Egypt unless the oppression under which they lived was greatly increased. It is certain that they would never have been willing to leave had they known all that lay ahead of them. This may explain, in part at least, why God does not reveal all that He might of the future. Had the disciples known in advance what lay ahead for their Master and for themselves they might never have obeyed His call, “Follow me.” Had those who accepted the Advent message prior to 1844 known of the great disappointment, and of the trying years that lay ahead, there would probably never have been an Advent Movement.
3. God Almighty. Under this name, ’El-Shaddai, the Sacred Record gives various accounts of the revelation of God, as to Abraham (Gen. 17:1) and to Jacob (Gen. 35:11). The full name is not used by God in any recorded appearance to Isaac, though Isaac himself used it in his farewell blessing to Jacob (Gen. 28:3).
By my name Jehovah was I not known. The meaning of this statement is not entirely clear. According to Gen. 15:7 God had revealed Himself to Abraham as Jehovah, even before declaring His name ’El-Shaddai, God Almighty. Later He revealed Himself to Jacob as Jehovah (Gen. 28:13). That Abraham knew this name is also obvious from the name Jehovah-jireh, which he gave the place where he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:14). That Moses regarded this name as known from the beginning of history is evident from Gen. 2:4 and Gen. 4:1, 26. The apparent meaning of this statement cannot therefore be its true meaning, for no inspired writer would contradict himself in such a way.
The Hebrews always thought of a name as indicating either the personal characteristics of the one named, or the thoughts and emotions of the one giving the name, or attendant circumstances at the time the name was given. God was now about to reveal Himself more fully than in the past, delivering His people with a “strong hand” (Ex. 6:1), actually taking them to Himself for a people (v. 7), establishing His covenant with them, and giving them the land of Canaan (v. 4). This being true, it seems that in v. 3 God must refer to the new meaning that the experience of deliverance would bring to the name rather than to the name itself (see vs. 1-7).
A similar problem occurs in Rev. 19:11-16. In v. 12 it is stated that “no man knew [Gr., “knows,” as in the RSV]” Christ’s name as He appears riding upon the “white horse,” leading forth the armies of heaven. Yet in v. 11 He is “called Faithful and True,” and in v. 13 “his name is called The Word of God.” These were names by which Christ was already known in character, at least to some extent, by His people. In v. 16. however, John speaks of Christ as “King of kings, and Lord of lords,” yet specifically describes this title as a new “name written, that no man knew, but he himself” (v. 12). From 1 Tim. 6:15 it is clear that this title was applied to Christ as far back as apostolic times. Obviously, John’s statement that “no man knew” the name refers, not to the title itself, but rather to the new role in which Christ appears as champion of His beleaguered people to “rule all nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5; cf. 19:15).
4. My covenant. See on Gen. 15:9; Gen. 17:7, 8; see also chs. 26:3; 28:13.
5. Heard the groaning. God had already assured Moses that the cry of His oppressed people had come before Him (ch. 3:9; cf. ch. 2:24), but the assurance was repeated because of Moses’ complaint. He, as well as his people, was to be sure that God had not forgotten them, but would sustain them in their affliction and would soon deliver them.
6. Great judgments. That deliverance could not be accomplished by peaceful means, but would require a show of force on the part of God, is now intimated. Hints of judgments to come had been made previously (chs. 3:20; 4:23). True, they had not been called such, although God had promised Abraham that He would judge that nation whom they should serve (Gen. 15:14). The plagues about to be visited upon Pharaoh and his people were not merely “wonders” or “signs” in the ordinary sense, but also punishments inflicted on a proud and cruel nation by a divine Judge.
7. I will. God continued to make promises, heaping them as it were one upon another. He would make Israel His peculiar people, He would make Himself known to them as the great Deliverer, He would bring them into the Promised Land, and He would give it to them as a possession. All these promises were fulfilled in due time. The Israelites were formally taken to be God’s people at Sinai (ch. 19:5, 6), where God at the same time became especially, but not exclusively, their God (ch. 20:1, 2).
9. They hearkened not. The Israelites, expecting a speedy deliverance, but the more oppressed because of Moses’ unwelcome interference, were too dispirited to be cheered even by the gracious promises and assurances Moses was commissioned to give them. They refused longer to place trust in one they thought had deceived them, one who was obviously but a dreamer, a visionary, if not worse. “Anguish of spirit” crushed their souls and “cruel bondage” wearied their bodies day by day, with the result that they lacked both the time and the will to listen.
The Samaritan version has an addition to v. 9, which, though probably not written by Moses, nevertheless casts some light on the reasoning of the disappointed Israelites. In agreement with a statement by the Israelites at a later time (ch. 14:12), it reads: “And they said to him, Let us alone, and let us serve the Egyptians; for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in a wilderness.”
11. Go out of his land. In the new commission Moses now received there is no longer mention of a three days’ journey, as at first (chs. 3:18; 5:3). A clear-cut statement is made that the children of Israel are to leave the country permanently. Moses was instructed to appear again before Pharaoh and to demand without equivocation that the Israelites be released from slavery.
12. How then shall Pharaoh hear me? The bitter complaints of the Israelites made Moses despondent, with the result that he again declined the commission. He had done God’s will and had appeared before the people as well as before the king, but he felt keen disappointment, since the people as well as the king had refused to listen to him. Immediately, all his original self-distrust and reluctance to shoulder the heavy burden of leadership returned.
Uncircumcised lips. This is a typical Hebrew phrase meaning the same as “slow of speech” in ch. 4:10. Similarly, “uncircumcised” ears (Jer. 6:10) are ears that do not hear, and an “uncircumcised” heart (Jer. 9:26) is a heart that does not understand.
13. Gave them a charge. God’s answer to Moses’ new protest is not recorded. It seems that He made no formal reply to Moses’ arguments, but gave, rather, an authoritative charge that provided no room for refusal. Moses was now sent to the Israelites and to the king, not with a request or a proposal, but with an imperative command.
14. These be the heads. At this point Moses interrupts his narrative to insert a section on genealogy, in which he takes the family history of Israel from the point at which he left it in ch. 1:5. The social organization of Israel was based upon the tribe, and a record of the divisions and subdivisions of the various families was therefore important. In view of the fact that the narrative had reached a turning point, this seemed a fitting place to insert the information. By “fathers’ houses” is meant “families” (see 1 Chron. 4:38; 1 Chron. 5:13; 1 Chron. 7:40; etc.). The “heads” are the acknowledged chiefs and founders of the various Israelite families.
Of Reuben. For the names of these four sons of Reuben, see on Gen. 46:9.
15. Of Simeon. For the names of Simeon’s sons, see on Gen. 46:10.
16. Of Levi. For Levi’s three sons, see on Gen. 46:11.
According to their generations. This phrase is used because Moses does not stop with the sons of Levi but proceeds on to the grandsons, great-grandsons, and other descendants in order to establish the exact relationship of Moses and Aaron to Jacob and the other tribes.
The years of the life of Levi. As an elder brother of Joseph, Levi must have passed the age of 40 years at the time of the descent into Egypt, since Joseph was about 39 at that time (see on Gen. 27:1). All three of his sons had been born before that time (Gen. 46:8-11). Since he died at the age of 137 he must have spent more than 90 years of his life in Egypt and survived by many years his brother Joseph, who died at the age of 110 (Gen. 50:26). Moses probably records the length of Levi’s life because Levi was his own ancestor.
17. The sons of Gershon. Gershon’s sons are mentioned first, since he was the eldest son of Levi. Libni means “the white one,” and may refer to a particularly light complexion; Shimi may mean “the one hearing.”
18. The sons of Kohath. Amram means “ingathering”; Izhar, “fresh oil”; Hebron, “companion”; and Uzziel, “God is my strength.”
The years of the life of Kohath. Kohath, who was born before the descent of Jacob into Egypt (Gen. 46:11), seems to have spent the greater part of his long life of 133 years in Egypt, and may have lived on into the period of oppression.
19. The sons of Merari. Mahali means “the pleasant one,” but the meaning of Mushi’s name is obscure. The Mahlites and Mushites were among the most important of the Levitical families at the time of the Exodus (Num. 3:33; 26:58).
20. Amram. That this Amram is the “man of the house of Levi” mentioned in ch. 2:1 cannot be doubted. He was a grandson of Levi. God had promised Abraham that the fourth generation of those who would go to the land of oppression should return to the Promised Land (Gen. 15:16). The four generations would thus be those of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses.
Jochebed. Meaning “Jehovah is glorious.” Jochebed is the earliest known human name related to the divine name Jehovah, which appears here in its abbreviated form, “Jo.”
His father’s sister. Jochebed, who is spoken of merely in general terms as a daughter of Levi in Ex. 2:1, which could mean any female descendant of Levi, is here called the aunt (dodah, translated “father’s sister”) of Amram, and therefore a sister of Kohath. This is in harmony with the accepted rendering of Num. 26:59. If that text, though uncertain, is complete, it indicates that Jochebed was a literal daughter of Levi. Though such a marriage was prohibited by the Mosaic law (Lev. 18:12), it was apparently permitted in earlier times.
She bare. Amram’s sons are listed according to age. Being three years older than Moses (Ex. 7:7), Aaron was named first. Their sister Miriam was still older (see ch. 2:4), but is not mentioned here, since the names of women appear in ancient genealogical lists only in exceptional cases. The insertion of her name in this text in the LXX, Vulgate, and one Hebrew manuscript seems to be the work of a later scribe.
21. The sons of Izhar. Of the three sons of Izhar, Amram’s brother, only Korah is mentioned again in the Bible (see Num. 16:1; 1 Chron. 6:37). His name means “the bald one.” The meaning of Nepheg is unknown; Zichri means “my memory.”
22. The sons of Uzziel. The sons of Uzziel, Amram’s youngest brother, are mentioned again later in the narrative. Mishael, the meaning of whose name is uncertain, and Elzaphan, meaning “God is hidden,” were later employed by Moses to carry the bodies of Nadab and Abihu out of the camp (Lev. 10:4). Elzaphan, called Elizaphan, is mentioned as head of the Kohathites in Num. 3:30. Zithri’s name means “my hiding place.” The names of these men, born during the severe oppression in Egypt, reflect the sentiments of their parents at the times of their birth. Elzaphan may have been born in a particularly dark hour when the future of Israel looked most forbidding and it seemed that God had hidden Himself. Zithri, like Moses, may have been born in secret and hidden for some time.
23. Aaron took him Elisheba. The name of Aaron’s wife meant “my God has sworn.” Her father, Amminadab, mentioned here for the first time, was a descendant of Judah through Pharez and Hezron and was an ancestor of Jesus (see 1 Chron. 2:3-10; Matt. 1:4). Amminadab means “my people is willing.”
Naashon. A transliteration of Nachshon, from the root nachash, “serpent.” A nachshon was an “enchanter,” that is, one who made use of serpents as a means of divination. Naashon was at this time “captain of the children of Judah” (Num. 2:3).
She bare him. On the fate of Aaron’s two eldest sons, who became the first priests under the Levitic law of Sinai, see Lev. 10:1, 2. Nadab means “he is willing,” and Abihu, “my father is he.”
Eleazar. Eleazar, meaning “God has helped,” became high priest upon the death of Aaron (Num. 20:23-28), and the high priestly office was perpetuated through his descendants (1 Chron. 6:4-15). His death is related in Joshua 24:33.
Ithamar. The meaning of the name of Aaron’s youngest son is uncertain. Like Aaron’s other sons, Ithamar became a priest, and was charged with the duty of recording the freewill offerings of the people toward the building of the tabernacle (ch. 28:1; 38:21).
24. The sons of Korah. Not all the sons of Korah were destroyed with their father in the uprising in the desert (Num. 26:11). The three sons mentioned here became heads of “families of the Korhites,” whose descendants were famous as temple singers in David’s time (1 Chron. 6:22, 23, 31; Ps. 42:1; 44:1; etc.). Assir means “prisoner”; Elkanah, “God has founded”; and Abiasaph, “my father has gathered.”
25. Putiel. The father-in-law of Eleazar, not mentioned elsewhere. The first part of the name is Egyptian, the second Hebrew, and the name means either “God has given” or “dedicated to God.”
Phinehas. Phinehas is an Egyptian name meaning “negro,” and may have indicated that Phinehas had an unusually dark complexion (cf. Libni, “the white one,” in Ex. 6:17). The presence of Egyptian names for persons of Hebrew birth in the book of Genesis is another evidence that it is a historical account, written by one familiar with Egypt. It is not surprising to find Egyptian names among the Israelites, after they had lived so long in Egypt. Such names would be similar to anglicized names of non-English immigrants to America. Under the circumstances it is surprising to find so many Israelites bearing Hebrew names, a fact due to reluctance to accept the customs, ways, and language of their oppressors.
26. That Aaron and Moses. The genealogy concluded, its author appends a note to the effect that the Aaron and Moses here mentioned (v. 20) are the very Aaron and Moses who were commanded to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt.
27. These are they. The expression, “these are that Aaron and Moses” (v. 26) is repeated in v. 27 with a significant reversal in the order of the names. In the genealogy itself Aaron stands first, as the elder of the two, but here, in anticipation of the historical narrative that follows, Moses takes precedence over his elder brother, as the divinely appointed savior of Israel.
28. Came to pass. Verses 28-30 are a repetition of the thought of vs. 10-12. Having inserted a genealogical section, Moses takes up the narrative where he left it in v. 12, and in doing so repeats the last section of the narrative in order to connect it with the story that follows.
29. I am the Lord. This is the only important variation in the repetition of vs. 10-12. It is possible that every revelation made to Moses was authenticated by these initial words “I am the Lord,” which have the force of that initial phrase so often found in the utterances of the later prophets, “Thus saith the Lord.”
1. A god to Pharaoh. Moses’ last objection (ch. 6:12, repeated in v. 30) was removed by God. Moses was reluctant to appear a second time before Pharaoh, who was so much his worldly superior, but God reminded him that as a representative of the God of heaven and earth he was superior to Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s power was but human; his was divine. He was to be to Pharaoh as “a god,” with authority and power to command obedience.
Thy prophet. As a prophet is a spokesman for God, so Aaron was to speak for Moses, to interpret his commands to Pharaoh and to the Israelites (see ch. 4:16).
3. I will harden. See on ch. 4:21.
Multiply my signs. God’s purpose to reveal His power both to Israel and to the Egyptians through a long series of miracles is here distinctly stated for the first time. Previously, three signs had been given (ch. 4:3-9) and one of the plagues had been mentioned (ch. 4:23). Now, signs and wonders were to be multiplied, far exceeding anything Moses himself could have expected (chs. 3:20; 6:6).
4. Lay my hand upon Egypt. God foresaw the obstinacy of Pharaoh, who had the privilege of setting his will against God’s, if he chose to do so. Thus there would be a great display of divine power, such as would attract the attention of all Egypt and of the surrounding nations as well. As a result, the power and majesty of the true God would be respected, and the nations would fear to interfere with His people (see Ex. 15:14-16; Deut. 2:25; 11:25; etc.).
Mine armies. Literally, “My hosts,” as in the RSV. As they left Egypt the Israelites “were unarmed, and unaccustomed to war” (PP 282; see also on ch. 13:18). Their organization for the journey was only partially completed when they left Goshen, and was not perfected until they reached Mt. Sinai.
5. The Egyptians shall know. Pharaoh had pretended not to know the God of the Hebrews (ch. 5:2), but Moses is assured that the Egyptians would become well acquainted with Him. They would have to recognize that He is the only true God and that other so-called gods are but wood and stone.
6. Moses and Aaron did. The obedience of Moses and Aaron to God was consistent and unquestioning from this time forward, until Aaron led out in the worship of the golden calf (ch. 32:21-24) and Moses smote the rock when commanded to speak to it (Num. 20:8-11).
7. Fourscore years old. Moses’ age is confirmed by the statement that he was 120 at the time of his death (Deut. 31:2; 34:7), which occurred 40 years after the Exodus (Deut. 29:5). Aaron’s age at death is given as 123 years (Num. 33:38, 39).
9. Shew a miracle. It was obvious that should Pharaoh grant them another audience he would require a display of their credentials, to verify their claim to being messengers of the most high God. As long as such a requirement was not made there was no need to perform miracles before him. For this reason they had worked no miracle at their former interview. Now, however, the time had come when their credentials would be demanded, and an express command was given them to exhibit the first sign (see ch. 4:3, 4).
Take thy rod. This was Moses’ shepherd staff, called also the “rod of God” (ch. 4:20). According to ch. 7:15-18, Moses was directed to go before Pharaoh to request that Israel be permitted to leave Egypt, and to announce that he would smite the waters of the Nile with the staff in his hand. From vs. 19 and 20 it is apparent that this miracle was performed by Aaron, who took Moses’ staff and stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt. The staff that Aaron held over the Nile can therefore have been none other than the staff of Moses, which had been turned into a serpent. There was but the one staff, with which both Moses and Aaron performed miracles (PP 263).
10. It became a serpent. The Hebrew word here used for “serpent,” tannin, is not the same as that used previously, nachash (ch. 4:3), but it is improbable that a different species is meant. The two words are no doubt used synonymously.
11. The wise men. The “wise men” were educated in science and the art of writing. The “sorcerers” were charmers, who professed to be able to produce magic spells. The word translated “magicians” is the Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew word translated “sorcerers.” Magic was the object of much attention and study in Egypt, as extant texts on magic show. It consisted to a large extent in charms that were thought to have power over and beasts, especially over reptiles. That these men must have experienced actual results in their practice of magic is obvious from the fact that they were held in such high esteem through the centuries. It must therefore be assumed that they performed at least some of their wonders by the power of evil spirits, though many were no doubt only trickery (see PP 264).
They also. The rods of the magicians did not actually become serpents, as did the rod of Aaron. Neither the magicians nor Satan himself could create life. Through the power of evil magic, their rods were made to appear to be serpents (see PP 264). As in ch. 8:18, they went through the motions, but did not achieve the same results.
12. Swallowed up their rods. Aaron’s serpent turned upon its rivals and devoured them, thus exhibiting marked superiority to them. Thus was the supremacy of the God of the Hebrews manifested in the very first miraculous sign performed in Pharaoh’s presence.
13. He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Literally, “Pharaoh’s heart was hard.” The KJV here seems to attribute the result to a direct act of God. In v. 22 the identical Hebrew expression is translated, “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened,” as it is in the RSV rendition of v. 13. The miracle made no impression on his obdurate heart. So far as he could see, Moses and Aaron had done little more than his own magicians could do (see also on ch. 4:21).
As the Lord had said. God had forewarned Moses of the outcome of this interview with Pharaoh, lest Moses be disappointed by the king’s attitude. Whereas Moses knew in advance exactly what developments to expect, Pharaoh knew nothing except what Moses told him. This situation gave Moses a distinct advantage over Pharaoh.
15. Get thee unto Pharaoh. God here imparts to Moses final instructions on announcing to Pharaoh the first of a series of divine judgments on the land of Egypt. Thebes was the capital of the country under Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but it is hardly conceivable that Moses performed these miracles there, hundreds of miles south of the Delta, where the land of Goshen was situated. Psalms 78:43 refers to the plagues as being wrought “in the field of Zoan.” Since the Biblical Zoan is the ancient Tanis, in the eastern Delta country, a city built seven years later than Hebron in Palestine (Num. 13:22), it must be that the king was in temporary residence at or near Tanis during the time of the plagues. It is known that there were royal palaces in various parts of the country.
He goeth out. This remark and that of ch. 8:20 imply that the king went to the river every morning. Inasmuch as the food and prosperity of Egypt were dependent upon the Nile (see on Gen. 41:34), one of the duties of the king was to worship at its banks each morning (see DA 265).
17. Thou shalt know. At a previous visit Pharaoh had declared, “I know not the Lord” (ch. 5:2). Moses now warns the rash monarch that he will soon be given an opportunity to learn something of the power of God (see ch. 9:14). The Nile god, the source of fertility and blessing, was to become an agent of death.
The plagues visited upon the Egyptians were designed not only to bring Pharaoh and his people to a recognition of the true God but also to destroy confidence in the power and protection of their false gods (ch. 12:12). Each of the ten plagues was painfully literal, and yet at the same time was directed against some phase of false religion. In the merciful providence of God, physical suffering occasioned by each plague was to lead the king and his counselors to reconsider their ways, that they might learn the folly of serving idols and the wisdom of cooperating with the God of heaven. In ancient Egypt the interests of king and priest were closely related, the king himself always being initiated into the priestly caste. Pharaoh and the priests rightly surmised that the stability of both church and state was at stake. The people and the counselors of the king, from more practical considerations, were ready to submit long in advance of the king and the priests (ch. 10:7). It was only following the tenth plague, as a result of which the next generation of royalty and of the priesthood died, that the latter were, for the moment, ready to submit (PP 272, 283). In the plagues that fell upon Egypt we behold a preview of the more terrible and extensive judgments of God soon to fall upon the earth (GC 269, 627).
Turned to blood. These words do not imply that the Nile waters would merely take on the color of blood, as some commentators have interpreted this passage, but rather that they would to all intents and purposes, actually become blood. It is beside the point to ask whether the water would have passed the various modern tests, microscopic and others, by which blood is analyzed. The water appeared to be blood, and was taken to be blood. It was not merely water discolored by red soil from Abyssinia. Some have suggested as a possible cause a high concentration of “cryptogamic plants and infusoria,” something similar to the “red tide” of microscopic organisms that kills millions of fish and brings a stench and an irritating gas to shores, bays, and inlets. It can be questioned whether water thus altered could fill all the specifications of this Biblical plague. Certainly the timing could not be controlled by man.
19. Upon the waters of Egypt. The change in the water extended to “the streams,” or different arms of the Nile, “the rivers,” or Nile canals, “the ponds,” or large standing lakes formed by the Nile, and all “the pools,” or artificial reservoirs where water was stored for use after the annual inundation. These four terms show an accurate knowledge of Egypt. Though Aaron was to stretch his arm over the Nile at but one place, the change would affect all Egypt.
In vessels of wood. It is not stated whether water in jars or other containers was drawn before or after the miracle.
22. The magicians of Egypt did so. Just as during Moses’ previous visit, the magicians were again consulted. Once more they counterfeited a genuine miracle by seeming to transform a certain quantity of water into blood. The question as to where the water the magicians used came from is answered in v. 24, which implies that newly dug wells furnished satisfactory drinking water. That the magicians actually turned the water into blood is not necessarily implied in the vague expression “did so.” They needed only to convince Pharaoh that they were able to do what Moses and Aaron had done. No critical examination was given their pretended miracle, which, in spite of being a trick, consequently passed as genuine. Had these men possessed the power they claimed to have they should have been able to turn the bloody water of the Nile back into normal water. That the king was satisfied with an imitation miracle shows stupidity, in his case probably the result of his hardened heart. He believed what he wanted to believe.
23. Pharaoh turned. Convinced that Moses and Aaron were merely magicians possessing powers slightly superior to those of his own magicians, Pharaoh dismissed God’s messengers and returned to his palace. The sufferings of his country, deprived of its life-giving supply of water, made little impression upon his hardened soul.
24. The Egyptians digged. Suffering greatly, the Egyptians dug wells to satisfy their needs during the emergency. Owing to the nitrous quality of the soil of Egypt, well water has a bitter and brackish taste. It sufficed, however, for drinking and cooking purposes for the duration of the plague (v. 25). The water supply of the Hebrews may not have been affected, inasmuch as only the Egyptians are mentioned as digging for water. Such a distinction is not stated here, but seems to be implied. In later plagues, Moses specifically notes such a distinction (see chs. 8:22; 9:4; etc.).
25. Seven days. This time note has been regarded as fixing the interval between the first plague and the second, but it is more natural to regard it as marking the duration of the first plague (see PP 265). The intervals of time between one plague and the next are not given. It is evident that the plagues continued over a period of several months. The nature of the various plagues, and the time intervals noted by Moses, indicate a period of time lasting, possibly, from the late summer to early spring.
1. Go unto Pharaoh. After an indeterminate interval Moses was ordered to announce the second plague. Like the first plague, this one was announced in advance, lest it should be taken as a natural and coincidental occurrence.
2. Frogs. Frogs were sacred animals to the Egyptians. One of their deities, Heqa, was a frog-headed goddess thought to possess creative power. Though the chief purpose of this plague was to punish the oppressors of Israel, it was also designed to cast contempt upon their many heathen gods. The great multiplication of frogs made the goddess Heqa appear not only ridiculous but even vicious. Here she was, tormenting the very people who professed to be her most ardent devotees. Their religious superstitions obliged the Egyptians to respect the creatures they now loathed and hated and would otherwise have destroyed.
3. The river shall bring forth. It is difficult for us to realize the severity of this plague. For the whole country to be filled with these disgusting creatures, to be unable to walk in the streets without treading on them, to find them not only occupying one’s doorstep but in possession of one’s house, in one’s bedchamber and upon one’s bed, to listen without respite to their dismal croak, to see nothing but their loathsome forms on every side, to be in perpetual contact with them and feel the repulsiveness of their cold and clammy skin, would be perhaps enough to try one’s sanity.
8. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron. Though able to imitate the new plague, the Egyptian magicians were unable to remove it. This is not expressly stated, but is evident from the fact that Pharaoh was obliged to send for Moses and Aaron to intercede with the Lord, whom he had pretended not to know. Thus the obdurate king, who had stubbornly endured the first plague till God chose to remove it, was forced to acknowledge the impotence of his own gods and to call upon the God of the Hebrews for help.
9. Glory over me. This is an expression of courtesy which means “have the honor of my submission,” or as in the RSV, “be pleased to command me.” By calling upon Pharaoh to appoint the time for the removal of the frogs Moses gave him another opportunity to witness the undeniable power of God.
12. Moses cried unto the Lord. Up to this point Moses had acted only in response to direct instructions from God. Now, however, he had ventured to fix a definite time for the removal of the plague, seemingly without any such specific command. Appropriately, he resorted to earnest prayer that his proposal might meet with divine approval. For the first time Moses appears in the role of one who knew the unlimited power of prayer, to which he resorted often and successfully during the following difficult years of leadership (see Ex. 32:31, 32; Num. 12:13).
15. When Pharaoh saw. As soon as respite was given, Pharaoh’s rebellious spirit again gained the upper hand. Believing the recent danger past and no doubt speculating lightheartedly that further visitations need not be expected, he broke his word. He was set on despising “the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God” was intended to lead him “to repentance.” By the “hardness” of his “impenitent heart” he was treasuring up unto himself “wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:4, 5).
16. Lice. Kinnam, probably derived from the Egyptian chenemeś, “gnats” or “mosquitoes.” The rendering “lice” follows the opinion of the Jewish historian Josephus and Talmudic writers, but has no linguistic basis. The Egyptian gnats were so small as to be barely visible to the eye but had a sting which, according to Philo and Origen, caused a most painful irritation of the skin.
18. They could not. Many commentators suggest that the magicians gave up the unequal contest by their own choice, realizing that they were unable to compete with Moses and Aaron. The text hardly warrants such an explanation, since the statement is made that they attempted to do what the messengers of the Hebrews’ God had done, but without producing any gnats. God permitted them to carry forward their work of opposition to a certain point, and then called a halt by preventing further apparently successful imitation of His own miraculous power.
19. This is the finger. The magicians recognized their own impotence more than do many modern commentators, who think that the magicians could have imitated the third plague just as easily as they did the previous two, had they wished to do so. In attributing this plague to the power of One whose works they could not match, the magicians unintentionally joined forces with Moses and Aaron. How often Christ’s opponents among the Pharisees and even the demon-possessed testified to His supernatural power (John 11:47, 48; Luke 8:28). How often truth is unwittingly drawn from those whose natural inclinations lead them to oppose it!
Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. The magicians recognized the futility of further attempts to oppose God, but Pharaoh held out. Pride prevented him from acknowledging defeat. His heart was adamant (see on Ex. 4:21).
20. Stand before Pharaoh. The first nine plagues fall logically into three groups of three plagues each, of which the first two were preceded by a warning and the third was not. In other respects no particular order is apparent, except that each succeeding plague surpassed, in general, the severity or offensiveness of the preceding one.
21. Flies. From ‘arob, a word of uncertain meaning. It may be related to the Assyrian urubatu, “mixed, noxious insects.” The translators of the LXX, who themselves lived in Egypt, took it to be the dog fly. This large and venomous insect is described by ancient and modern writers as a severe scourge, for when enraged it often fastens itself to the human body, particularly to the edges of the eyelids. This accounts, in part, for the fact that eye diseases are found so commonly in Egypt (see also on v. 24).
22. I will sever. A new feature is introduced, which distinguishes the later from earlier plagues, with one possible exception (see on ch. 7:24). This constituted an additional evidence of the miraculous character of the visitations, well calculated to impress thoughtful and honest minds that God was not a local or even a national deity but one whose power extended to all peoples. Egyptians who studied the course of events during those fateful weeks or months must have recognized the supreme authority of Israel’s God over Egypt as well as over the Hebrews themselves.
23. A division. Literally, “redemption.” God would establish a sign by which everyone might see that the Hebrews were already “redeemed” from bondage though still nominally in slavery.
24. The land was corrupted. This plague must have been severe in the extreme to “corrupt,” or literally, “to destroy” the land. It is not clear how this could have been true, even of dog flies, however numerous they may have been. We simply accept the statement of Holy Writ.
25. Go ye. The fourth plague impressed Pharaoh more than those that had preceded it. Nevertheless, he was not yet prepared to accede to the demand of Moses, but offered, instead, a compromise. Granting the Israelites respite from their toil, he was now willing for them to celebrate their proposed feast—within the borders of Egypt.
26. It is not meet. “It would not be right to do so,” as in the RSV. Many animals were held sacred by the Egyptians, some universally and some only locally. By celebrating a great festival anywhere in Egypt the Israelites would inevitably offend the religious sensibilities of their neighbors. This fact was so obvious that even Pharaoh did not attempt to refute Moses’ arguments. He himself would have looked upon sacrificial rites performed by the Israelites as an outrageous insult to his gods.
28. Not go very far away. The reasons presented by Moses for going into the desert commended themselves to the heathen king, from his own religious viewpoint. As a result he promised to let the people go into the wilderness and sacrifice if they would be content not to go far away, and provided of course that Moses and Aaron release him and his people from the plague. Pharaoh here revealed for the first time that his real reason for refusing to let Israel go was the fear of losing them altogether. With this in mind he proposed to compromise that they should just enter the wilderness on his eastern border, remain near the frontier, and thus be within easy reach of his army. Moses seems to have made no objection to this suggestion, since he had requested permission to leave for three days only, and this would not have taken the Hebrews very far beyond the Egyptian frontier.
29. To morrow. Pharaoh had fixed the following day for the lifting of the second plague (v. 10). Similarly, Moses now announced the time for the removal of the fourth. However, he added a solemn warning to the king against further deceitful dealing. His boldness is certainly surprising, but Pharaoh apparently accepted his proposal without objection.
31. There remained not one. The hand of God was shown in the removal, no less than in the infliction of, the plagues. The complete disappearance of the flies was as supernatural as their sudden coming had been.
3. Upon thy cattle. Hitherto the plagues had been directed against the Egyptians themselves rather than against their property. Property may have suffered somewhat under the preceding plague (see ch. 8:24), but otherwise the various afflictions had been the cause of little more than annoyance and pain. Now property was to be affected. Whether Pharaoh would be more impressed by calamities that impoverished his subjects than by those that merely caused them personal suffering remained to be seen. With this in view, the hand of God was first laid upon their cattle, or rather, upon all their domesticated animals.
The horses. Horses, which had been unknown prior to the Hyksos invasion and which consequently do not appear in the list of animals presented to Abraham (Gen. 12:16), first became common under the Eighteenth Dynasty. They seem to have been used chiefly in warfare.
Camels. The camel was not widely used throughout the ancient Near East before the 13th century b.c.; hence it is mentioned but infrequently in the earlier Biblical records. However, representations of camels found in Egypt, Syria-Palestine, and Mesopotamia from the third and second millenniums b.c. show that sporadic domestication of this animal had taken place long before the 13th century b.c. (see on Gen. 12:16; 24:11).
Murrain. The usual Hebrew term for “plague,” and so rendered in the RSV. Inasmuch as the particular disease here mentioned affected animals only, the word might be rendered “animal plague.” Epidemic cattle diseases are not uncommon in Egypt and have at times carried off vast numbers of animals. The miraculous character of this visitation, however, was indicated by its previous announcement, by its appearance on the day appointed, by its severity, and by the fact that the animals of the Hebrews remained unaffected.
5. To morrow. A definite time was fixed for the coming of the plague, as in the case of the previous one (ch. 8:23), in order that Pharaoh might recognize in it a judgment of God. Also, there would be time for those who believed Moses to bring their animals in from the fields (see ch. 9:3).
6. All the cattle of Egypt. That is, all that were in the field (v. 3). At the time of the next plague many of the Egyptians still possessed animals (v. 19). The fact that many Egyptians brought their cattle in indicates how deeply they had been impressed by the power of God and the catastrophes that followed each other in quick succession.
Died not one. On the distinction between Israelites and Egyptians see ch. 8:22.
7. Pharaoh sent. For the first time Pharaoh manifests curiosity regarding the plagues. But in spite of finding the facts to correspond with Moses’ announcement, he was not seriously impressed. In one sense he seems to have been less moved by this plague than by the others. Apparently, he had suffered no great personal loss, and the financial loss to his subjects was of little concern to him. He may have attributed the escape of the animals of the Israelites to the healthier air of Goshen, or to a higher knowledge of their owners in regard to animal care, since they were professional shepherds. An obdurate heart always finds reasons for things it chooses to believe.
8. Take. The sixth plague, like the third, came unannounced, although the miracle was to be performed in the presence of the king. Perhaps this occurred as he was on his way to the river for the daily rites he performed there (see chs. 7:15; 8:20).
Ashes of the furnace. Scholars are divided as to the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “ashes.” Some think it should be rendered “soot.” The furnace was a smelter. This plague in particular seems to be a fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham four centuries earlier (PP 267).
9. A boil. Perhaps an “abscess,” or a “boil breaking forth in blisters.” The exact nature of this disease is not clear. Some have thought that the so-called Nile boils are meant, from which the people of Egypt suffer much toward the end of the annual inundation and which cause an almost unbearable itching. Since this malady is common in Egypt, it would hardly have been considered supernatural unless it came in unprecedented severity. Some have thought the plague to have been smallpox or a skin disease similar to leprosy.
11. The magicians could not stand. It seems that the magicians had, up to this time, always been present when the miracles were wrought, though they had for some time failed to produce counterfeit miracles. On this occasion the plague fell on them with such severity that they could not attend the king, but fled to their homes for protection and treatment.
13. Stand before Pharaoh. The sixth plague was without effect upon the hard heart of Pharaoh, who was untouched either by the sufferings of his people or by his own affliction. Moses was therefore ordered to appear before him once more to warn him of further and even more dreadful visitations.
Say unto him. Moses was to repeat the same message in the very same words as before, indicating that God changes not (see chs. 8:1, 20; 9:1; etc.). The long message that follows, previously without parallel, contains warnings calculated to make an impression even upon the most hardened sinner.
14. All my plagues upon thine heart. This emphatic announcement contrasted the immediate future with the recent past, and informed the king that God was to bring upon him even more severe judgments than in the past. He might now expect plagues of greater intensity and in more rapid succession, directed primarily at his obdurate and stubborn spirit. The loss of his first-born, the prospective crown prince, would subdue his calloused heart and he would even beg the Israelites to go, entreating their leaders, his worst enemies, to give him their blessings (ch. 12:32).
15. I will stretch out my hand. In Hebrew the verbs of this verse are in the perfect tense and not in the future, as the KJV renders them and thus creates at least an apparent contradiction (see further under v. 16).
16. To shew. God proceeds to explain His reason for not having already destroyed Pharaoh, whose obstinacy had long since called for such punishment. The reason here presented is twofold: (1) that Pharaoh might experience and so come to recognize the might of the true God and repeatedly be compelled to give glory to Jehovah; (2) that the name of God might be declared throughout all the earth. This was completely fulfilled, and Pharaoh was forced to admit not only the superior might of God but His righteousness as well (see v. 27). The mighty events preceding and accompanying the Exodus became world famous. In keeping with their custom not to record adverse events, the Egyptians left no trace of the Exodus experience on their monuments. But they could not prevent the spread of the story of these mighty events to other nations (see Ex. 15:14; Joshua 2:10; etc.). And today, though more than three millenniums have passed since these “marvellous things” happened “in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan” (Ps. 78:12), the story is still read in more than a thousand languages, in every country of the world, proclaimed by countless thousands of preachers, and still believed by millions of Jews and Christians. Could any prophecy be more literally fulfilled than this one spoken to the king of Egypt?
The future tense used by the KJV in rendering Ex. 9:15, 16 (see on v. 15) has led to a misunderstanding of the character of God and the nature of His dealings with men. It is made to appear that God has predestined Pharaoh to pursue his policy of resisting God, in order that God might benefit by his hardness of heart. It is inferred, furthermore, that God either brought him into existence or set him upon the throne of Egypt for this very purpose and doomed him to act in defiance of the divine will. Such an inference is at variance with many plain statements of Scripture which affirm that God does not predetermine the fate of any individual nor does He compel the human will (see Joshua 24:15; Isa. 55:1; John 1:12; John 3:16; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17; etc.). The thought of the original Hebrew of vs. 15 and 16 is more appropriately expressed thus: “By now I could have put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live, to show you my power, so that my name may be declared throughout all the earth” (RSV; see Ed 174-178, 238, 304).
17. As yet exaltest thou thyself? It is implied that even at this late hour Pharaoh might have avoided the major disasters that later befell him and his people. Pharaoh was yet to have the opportunity of deciding for himself whether or not he would cooperate with God. In the Hebrew, this verse is not a question, but a simple statement of fact, though the sense is not thereby changed: “You are still exalting yourself,” etc.
18. To morrow about this time. That the time was fixed for the beginning of the plague would testify to the king that Jehovah was Lord of heaven and earth, and that the forces of nature, all objects of Egyptian idolatry, were the creatures of His power and subservient to His will. Far from being able to help them, these elements, regarded by the Egyptians as their gods, were under the control of the God of their enemies, and He would now use them as instruments for the punishment of those who worshiped them. How greatly God abhors idolatry!
A very grievous hail. Rain and, more particularly, hail are comparatively rare in Egypt. The region of Cairo has but 2 in. of rainfall annually, and south of Cairo rain is a rare occurrence. Sometimes not a drop of rain falls for years. It is understandable, therefore, that a hailstorm such as that described in vs. 23 and 24 was so extraordinary an experience as to be considered an act of divine punishment (see v. 27).
Since the foundation. This is from another typically Egyptian expression rendered by Moses into Hebrew, which, with numerous others, shows that the author was well acquainted with the Egyptian language. In v. 24 the same thought is expressed by the words “since it became a nation.” Many Egyptian inscriptions refer to the ancient past when their first king united several tribes into one nation.
19. Gather thy cattle. Even in the midst of judgment God still showed mercy, warning the Egyptians of their impending doom and advising them to safeguard both themselves and their property. Had Pharaoh and his servants accepted the warning so mercifully given, the lives of both men and beasts would have been spared. On the contrary, the warning was not taken to heart, and great loss of life occurred (v. 25).
20. He that feared. For the first time an intimation is made that there were Egyptians who had learned to fear the Lord. Apparently the effect of the plagues had gradually convinced many of them that the God of the Hebrews was indeed a powerful God. They probably did not yet know Him as the only true God, but only as One whom it was advantageous to respect and propitiate. At the Exodus a “mixed multitude,” apparently not Hebrews themselves (cf. Num. 11:4), left Egypt with the departing slaves (Ex. 12:38). As a result of the plagues many Egyptians must have come to the conclusion that it would be to their advantage to join the despised Hebrews and benefit by at least nominal allegiance to their God. Here, at the time of the seventh plague, is the first indication of dissension among the Egyptians, who seem thus far to have been united in their opposition to the Israelites. Some of the “servants [officials] of Pharaoh” profited by the warning given by Moses (ch. 9:19) and housed their cattle and herdsmen in anticipation of the coming storm.
21. He that regarded not. A hailstorm of sufficient proportions as to endanger the lives of men and beasts was beyond all Egyptian experience and seemed an utter impossibility. Moses and Aaron must therefore have appeared to the great mass of Egyptians as Lot did to his sons-in-law—“as one that mocked” (Gen. 19:14).
22. Toward heaven. The action of stretching the hand toward heaven was appropriate, for the plague was to come from heaven. Aaron’s hand had been stretched out upon the waters in a similar way for the first and second plagues (chs. 7:19, 20; 8:6), and upon the “dust of the earth” for the third (ch. 8:17).
23. Moses. Beginning with the seventh plague Moses steps forward as the sole agent of God. When calling the representatives of the Israelites, Pharaoh still sent for both Moses and Aaron (v. 27; ch. 10:8) as the two with whom he had been dealing from the time the plagues began. But Moses had now become God’s spokesman in the presence of the king and executor of the divine judgments. By now he must have lost his timidity and fearfulness and become the dauntless champion for the cause of God that he remained till the close of his life.
Thunder and hail, and the fire. Although hail only had been predicted, lightning and thunder commonly accompany hailstorms in warm climates. The peculiar electrical display described here as fire running “along upon the ground” seems to have been something corresponding to “fireballs.”
25. The hail. Severe as the lightning may have been, the hail wrought greater destruction. According to the warning given (v. 19), herdsmen and cattle left in the open were killed.
Smote every herb. Not in the absolute sense, since according to ch. 10:5 some vegetation escaped. It indicates, rather, every kind of crop and fruit tree. From ch. 9:31 it is apparent that only two crops were totally destroyed, the barley and the flax, while others suffered damage in lesser degree.
27. I have sinned. The plague of hail made a stronger impression upon the king than any of the previous judgments. It was the first plague to inflict death upon men, and was the most striking and terrible manifestation of divine power he had yet experienced (v. 24). Pharaoh was therefore more humble than before, and though he had twice called Moses and requested the removal of plagues (ch. 8:8, 28), this was the first time the proud king had admitted the error of his ways. Remarkable as such a confession was, it did not, however, represent sincere repentance, as the limitation “this time” indicates. It was, rather, the effect of terror occasioned more by the fearful lightning and destructive hail than by genuine sorrow for sin.
28. Stay no longer. Again the king gave his word to let the Hebrews depart, if the plague would but cease.
29. Out of the city. Possibly Memphis or Tanis, more likely the latter city (see on ch. 7:15), where the king resided, and to which Moses and Aaron went when sent by God to interview the king or when called by him.
Spread abroad my hands. This is one of several texts in which the custom of spreading one’s hands in prayer is mentioned. Not only Moses prayed in this fashion, but also Job (Job 11:13), Solomon (2 Chron. 6:13), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5).
The earth is the Lord’s. Although the word translated “earth” could also be rendered “land,” and thus applied to Egypt, the former is probably correct, because it was ever God’s purpose to teach men to recognize Him, not as a local god, but as the Ruler of heaven and earth.
30. I know that ye will not yet fear. Moses, knowing that the king’s attitude would remain as adamant as ever, once relief from the plague should come, was bold enough to express his conviction of that fact in the presence of the king. True fear of God is shown by obedience to His commandments, but Pharaoh’s fear was of the kind the devils feel, for they “also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19). Devout fear leads to obedience, but the fear in Pharaoh’s heart led him to false promises and greater sin. Genuine “fear of the Lord” is not the cringing fear felt by Pharaoh, but a spirit of reverent awe resulting from awareness of God’s sublime majesty and power.
31. Flax. Information concerning the crops that suffered indicates the approximate time of year in which the plague occurred. The Egyptians cultivated flax because they preferred linen garments. The priests wore nothing but linen.
“Was bolled.” Better, “was in blossom.” This would point to the end of January or the beginning of February.
Barley. The barley crop was in ear about the same time, commonly being cut in March. Barley was raised largely for the production of beer, a common beverage among the ancient Egyptians. It was also used for horse feed, and was made into bread by the poorer classes.
32. Wheat. In Egypt the wheat harvest began about a month later than the barley harvest, and continued until the early part of April.
Rie. Rye was not grown in Egypt, and it is generally agreed that the Hebrew word here translated “rie” was in reality spelt, an inferior kind of wheat now ordinarily raised in Egypt as an aftercrop. As the monuments show, it was grown more commonly in ancient times than it is today. Being sown simultaneously with wheat, it would also ripen about the same time, in late March.
The remark that the flax and barley had been destroyed, but that the wheat and spelt had escaped major harm, shows that the plague of hail must have occurred at either the end of January or the beginning of February. That would be two or three months before the Exodus. On the duration of the plagues, see on chs. 7:25 and 9:31.
34. He sinned yet more. In perverse impenitence the king “hardened his heart,” as Moses had predicted. Apparently his officials stood by him in this decision, though the following plague convinced them of the futility of further resistance (ch. 10:7). Whether they supported Pharaoh out of servility or because they were not yet convinced of the power of God is not certain.
Like some of the preceding plagues, the seventh again demonstrated the worthlessness of repentance born of fear. God might thus secure the submission of all men, but the conquest would be worthless, because men’s hearts would not be won. God is met, not in the tempest and fire of fear, but in the still small voice speaking within man’s breast. Many sinners have passed through the gates of fear, where they hear His voice, confess His power, and acknowledge their own unworthiness, but it is not until the silence of the soul has made that voice distinct that men will be transformed in character.
1. I have hardened his heart. Literally, “I, even I, have made heavy his heart” (see on ch. 4:21). The word “I” appears twice in the original, once as an independent personal pronoun and again attached to the verb, for emphasis.
2. That thou mayest tell. A new objective of the plagues is now revealed. They were designed not only to impress Pharaoh and his servants with the greatness of God and to secure his cooperation, but to convince the children of Israel for all future generations that the Lord is the only true God. Psalms 78, 105, and 106 illustrate how the story of deliverance was handed down from generation to generation. It was God’s plan that His mercies and wondrous works be kept in perpetual remembrance. His proneness to forget God’s benefits being one of the sad facets of his sinful character, man requires constant exhortation to remember them. This is often true of his daily needs, but applies also to providential circumstances, such as those connected with conversion or recovery from severe illness.
3. How long? Pharaoh’s confession (ch. 9:27) had been a humiliating act, but this was nullified by a proud reassertion of his rebellious heart (ch. 9:34, 35). What God desired was not a mere profession of humility, but action in keeping with it. Pharaoh’s repentance would not prove genuine until it led him to release the Israelites.
4. The locusts. As further punishment upon the obstinate king God announced a plague of locusts more dreadful than any Egypt had known heretofore. Locusts, God’s “great army,” as they are called in Joel 2:25, have to the present day brought periodic calamity to countries of the Near East, generally every 10 or 15 years. Effective control is now possible through scientific methods, such as the use of flame, chemically treated trenches into which the locusts fall in droves, destruction of the eggs, and the use of arsenic, but such means did not become available until comparatively recent times. Formerly, the coming of the locusts was considered the most terrible of all judgments that could befall a country. Joel gives a vivid description of such a plague, saying, “A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3). They destroy every trace of vegetation, including crops, vegetables, shrubs, and thistles. They even damage the bark of trees, the smaller branches being completely peeled and made white (see Joel 1:7-12). They arrive in great swarms, their noise in flight resembling that of rain or the crackle of fire in dry grass, and their numbers darken the sky (Joel 2:2, 3).
5. Cover the face of the earth. This is literally true. Sometimes they cover the ground so thickly that over vast areas the soil cannot be seen at all.
Eat the residue. Since locusts leave no trace of verdure (see on v. 4) whatever, they would obviously devour all that survived the devastating hailstorm, especially the wheat and the spelt (see ch. 9:32). Prospects for the next harvest appeared dim indeed. No product of any kind could now be expected for the current year, and famine must inevitably result.
6. Fill thy houses. Constructed with various openings for light and ventilation, ancient houses afforded insects ready means of entrance. In a plague, swarms of locusts would fly into the houses and creep over the walls by the tens of thousands. Observers who have experienced such a plague claim that it is even difficult to keep the locusts out of one’s mouth when eating.
Neither thy fathers. Like other Near Eastern countries, Egypt occasionally suffers from devastating plagues of locusts. This visitation, however, was to exceed any such plagues in the past.
He turned himself. Moses did not wait to learn the effect of his announcement upon the king, knowing that Pharaoh would not fear the Lord.
7. Pharaoh’s servants said. Thus far the courtiers seem not to have ventured their own opinion, at least in opposition to Pharaoh. Except for the magicians, who had pointed to the lice of the third plague as “the finger of God” (ch. 8:19), the entire court had remained passive while the king made the successive fateful decisions affecting the nation. They are even said to have “hardened” their hearts like the king (ch. 9:34). But now they speak forth their fears. Having already lost most of their cattle and nearly all crops for the current season, they became genuinely alarmed, fearing that further calamities would ruin them permanently. It is significant that they interfered before the plague actually began, for this revealed that they had come to believe in the reliability of Moses’ predictions and in the power of his God. Some had already come to this point when the hailstorm was announced (ch. 9:20), but that feeling had now become more general.
8. Go, serve the Lord. Realizing that he lacked the support of his advisers, Pharaoh permitted them to call Moses and Aaron back for further questioning. The command “Go” was almost immediately qualified by a question implying that not all the people were included in it. It seems that the king was vainly looking for a minimum concession he might make to placate Moses and avert further calamities. He sought therefore to give Moses’ request the appearance of being unreasonable.
9. With our young and with our old. There was no ambiguity in Moses’ answer; the whole nation was to participate in the proposed feast. Their flocks and herds were to accompany them, not only to provide sacrifices for the celebration and food for the people, but also to be cared for during the days of absence.
10. He said. Inferring from Moses’ statement that the Israelites had no intention of returning, Pharaoh again became angry, saying, as translated more clearly, “The Lord be with you, if ever I let you and your little ones go! Look, you have some evil purpose in mind” (RSV). This answer reflects contempt not only for Moses and Aaron but also for the Lord, who had already proved by the mighty manifestations of His power that He could do with Pharaoh as He wished. After this expression of ill will the king told the messengers of God that he saw through their evil intentions. He pretended to have more concern for the Hebrew women and children than Moses and Aaron had, but was determined to hold the former as a guarantee that the men would return (PP 271).
11. Go now. Even this apparent concession was not seriously meant. This is evident from the expression “go now,” in which the irony is unmistakable, and still more so from the fact that with these words he broke off all negotiations with Moses and Aaron and drove them from his presence. This insult, which he had not previously offered them, shows that his rage increased as he saw more and more clearly that he must eventually yield.
13. An east wind. Locusts generally come with a wind, since they cannot fly far without it. An east wind would in this case have brought them from northern Arabia, a region where they often breed in large numbers. This would be somewhat exceptional, since the locusts that occasionally plague Egypt usually come from Libya or Ethiopia, to the south or southwest. The fact that the wind blew for an entire day and night before the locusts arrived suggests that they came from a considerable distance.
14. Over all the land. Ordinarily swarms of locusts are confined to certain parts of the country, but upon this occasion the plague affected a greater area than ever before. This in itself was miraculous.
Neither after them. This statement is not at variance with Joel 2:2, where centuries later another unique plague of locusts is mentioned, for the former relates to Egypt and the latter to the land of Israel.
15. The land was darkened. It is not quite clear whether the darkness here spoken of was caused by the locusts in flight or after they had settled down. Locusts usually come in such thick clouds that they obscure the light of the sun and often turn noonday into twilight. It is also true that their brownish bodies and wings darken the ground once they settle to earth. The latter explanation is more probable (see Joel 2:2).
All the fruit. Although injury to fruit by the hail is not expressly mentioned in the account of that plague, it is implied (see Ex. 9:25). Locusts generally devour green crops, plants, and leaves first and then set to work upon such harder materials as reeds, twigs, and the bark of trees. In Egypt the principal fruits would be figs, pomegranates, mulberries, grapes, and dates.
Not any green thing. Modern observers state that the settling of a swarm of locusts for but half an hour is sufficient to transform a fertile region into a temporary desert. After the locusts have passed, nothing remains but the roots, stems, and thick branches. The appearance of a region so devastated is similar to what it would be if fire had swept through it (see Joel 2:3).
16. Then Pharaoh called. The king had made similar appeals before, but never in such haste as at this time. Evidently this plague terrified him more than any of the previous seven.
18. Intreated the Lord. Moses knew that neither a word of reproach nor a demand would change the hardened heart of the monarch. Nevertheless he interceded, but not on the basis of any promise of the king, which he now knew from experience would soon be violated. The patience and magnanimity of Moses are truly remarkable. He granted the royal request the instant it was made, without either asking a favor or uttering the slightest reproach.
19. A mighty strong west wind. Literally, “a sea wind,” indicating that it came from the Mediterranean. Since it carried the locusts into the Red Sea, it must have come from the northwest. Inasmuch as the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west of Palestine, the Hebrew people commonly used “the sea” as a synonym for “west.”
The Red sea. Literally, “Sea of Reeds.” It is not certain why it should have had this name, since there are no reeds there today, nor is there any indication that there were in ancient times. However, the evidence of numerous Bible texts (see Ex. 15:4; 23:31; Num. 21:4; etc.) makes it rather certain that the Sea of Reeds was actually the Red Sea, and not one of the Bitter Lakes in the region of the Suez Canal, as some commentators have maintained.
21. Stretch out thine hand. The ninth plague, like the third and the sixth, was inflicted without prior warning. After the plague of boils, God had announced that He was about to send all His plagues upon the “heart” of the king (ch. 9:14). A succession of judgments was therefore to be expected. Apparently, this plague quickly followed the eighth.
Darkness. Some commentators have assumed that an eclipse of the sun caused the intense darkness. This interpretation, however, cannot be correct, inasmuch as an eclipse could never produce darkness lasting for three days (v. 22). The majority of interpreters have felt that the miracle was wrought through the chamsin, a desert sandstorm that occasionally blows over Egypt and covers the land with a weird darkness. This is due to dense clouds of fine sand that the wind carries with it and that intercept the light of the sun, producing darkness deeper than that of the worst fogs. The present writer once experienced such a sandstorm at the edge of the Indian Desert on a clear day, and can testify that for half an hour darkness prevailed equal to that of a moonless night. Saturated with fine particles of sand, the wind was most annoying and depressing, and men and beasts looked for cover. The fine sand penetrated every room and even the closets of the houses. A sandstorm may blow for two or three days, but it seldom has so extreme an effect for very long at a time. Even if God used swirling sand to produce the darkness, it was nonetheless miraculous, because though the entire country was enveloped in impenetrable darkness for three days, the children of Israel, living in that same country, had light (v. 23). But the Egyptians were accustomed to severe sandstorms blowing in from the desert. Furthermore, with each of the other plagues Moses describes the agency by which it was accomplished, and it would be logical here to expect him to refer to it as a sandstorm if that is what he meant.
Like the previous plagues, this one dealt a heavy blow to the Egyptian gods. The sun-god Ra had been the chief god of Egypt for centuries, and every king called himself the “son of Ra.” In the time of Moses this god was identified with Amen and bore the name Amen-Ra. The greatest temples the world has ever seen were built in his honor, and one of them, the great temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt, is still magnificent, even in a state of ruin. Another god was the sun disc Aten, which a few decades after the Exodus became, briefly, the supreme god of the Egyptian religious system. By the ninth plague the utter impotence of these gods was clearly demonstrated to their worshipers.
23. Light in their dwellings. No explanation is given as to how this was accomplished. Those who account for the darkness as the result of a sandstorm explain that it did not extend as far as the land of Goshen. But in that case Egyptians living among the Israelites, if there were any, would have shared the benefits of their neighbors, which seems not to have been the case. The record indicates that the darkness was general, but that the children of Israel were miraculously supplied with light.
24. Pharaoh called unto Moses. The intense darkness was more than the king could long endure. On the third day of its duration he sent messengers to locate Moses. Ushered into the presence of the king, Moses was informed that the Hebrews, including their families, were to be permitted to depart for the proposed religious celebration in the desert, but that they should leave their flocks and herds behind. This would ensure their return from the wilderness, since without the cattle they would be unable to live many days in the desert.
26. Not an hoof. Moses refused Pharaoh’s proposed compromise in unmistakable words. He had already declared, on a former occasion, that they would go with their families and all their beasts (v. 9), and this stipulation he would by no means retract now.
We know not. Moses offered an explanation for his refusal. The proposed feast was new and its ritual was not yet known. Exact directions could not be expected until they had reached the location God should designate. The cattle must be taken with them because the feast would certainly require the offering of sacrifices.
28. Get thee from me. This reply indicates furious anger. The king realized that Moses would deprive him of the free labor Egypt had so long enjoyed. Greatly enraged, he lost all self-control and rudely bade Moses not to return, under penalty of death.
29. Thou hast spoken well. Moses’ reply was polite and dignified. The representative of a nation of slaves stood before their cruel master, in complete control of the situation. His words imply that Moses welcomed the royal decision, since further interviews would be useless.
I will see thy face again no more. These words simply express acquiescence to the king’s command. Moses would not voluntarily appear before Pharaoh again.
1. One plague more. Although God had previously indicated to Moses that several judgments would be required to move Pharaoh to issue permission for their departure (see chs. 3:19; 9:14), He never revealed the precise number of plagues that would be required. For the first time the veil of uncertainty is now lifted as to the time when deliverance might be expected.
Thrust you out. The Hebrew verb is most emphatic. Pharaoh would eventually drive them out, making no reservations of any kind.
2. Every man. At first only the women were to “borrow” (see on ch. 3:22). Now that the time had come the men were included. It may seem strange that men as well as women were advised to ask jewelry from their neighbors. However, Egyptian monuments picture men wearing as much jewelry—necklaces, bracelets, rings, etc.—as the women.
3. The man Moses was very great. Some have thought it strange that Moses, if he were indeed the author of the Pentateuch, should make such a comment. There is, however, nothing in the statement inferring vanity on the part of Moses. He is simply explaining why the Egyptians gave so freely of their means. It was natural that, as the agent of God, the people should have associated Moses with the “very great” signs they had witnessed. First of all, he had confounded the magicians (ch. 8:18, 19), then he had so impressed the courtiers that a number of them took advantage of one of his warnings and saved their livestock (ch. 9:20). Finally, almost the entire court became convinced that it lay in his power to destroy the country (ch. 10:7). Moses had dealt with the king as with an equal, and the fact that the people reverenced him as a god automatically enhanced Moses’ reputation with them. Had Moses not appeared to them as a most extraordinary person whom it would be dangerous to molest, some violence would probably have been done him long since. As it was, the entire nation seemed happy that the people who had occasioned them so much misfortune were to leave, and therefore they gave gladly of their means.
4. And Moses said. Once more Moses appeared in the presence of Pharaoh. According to ch. 10:28 Pharaoh had threatened him with death should he dare to do so. It is certain that Moses would not have returned except upon an explicit divine command.
About midnight. This midnight could not be the one following the day on which Moses made the announcement to the king, for it was not till after this conversation with Pharaoh that Moses received directions as to the Passover. These directions must have been communicated to the people several days prior to the feast of the Passover and their departure from Egypt (ch. 12:3, 6). The night was no doubt purposely left indefinite in order that Pharaoh might have time to ponder the fate that awaited him and his people.
Will I go out. It is noteworthy that the Lord Himself visited Egypt with the tenth plague, whereas each of the others had been inflicted by Moses and Aaron as agents of God, through a natural medium.
5. All the firstborn. This stroke was to fall upon the first-born of both man and beast. God did not desire to obliterate the Egyptians and their cattle, but simply to convince them that opposition to His purpose for Israel could no longer be tolerated.
6. A great cry. The intensity of Oriental emotions and the freedom with which they are expressed are well known. Ancient Egyptian funeral scenes picture wailing women with disheveled hair and arms upraised, expressing their sorrow by gestures as well as vocally. Herodotus relates that the Egyptians stripped themselves and beat their breasts at funerals (ii. 85), a custom that also prevailed among the Semites. With bitter mourning in every house, the cry of Egypt might now well be one such as had never been heard before and would not be heard again.
7. Move his tongue. The word translated “move” means “to cut into,” “to sharpen,” “to bring to a point,” and alludes to the fact that a dog points its tongue when it growls. Israel would not suffer the slightest injury (see Joshua 10:21), whereas many Egyptians would die.
8. In a great anger. Literally, in the “heat of anger.” Thus far Moses had displayed more than human patience in his dealings with the king. This was a reflection of the long-suffering and patience of God, whose ambassador he was and in whose name and by whose authority he had acted. Now, however, the wrath of the departing servant of God was evidence to the hardhearted king that his day of grace was at an end and that the wrath of God was about to burst upon him.
9. The Lord said unto Moses. Most commentators take these words as a repetition of previously made divine statements, and seek to translate them, “as the Lord had said unto Moses.” But they may also be taken as a renewed pledge of God to Moses that He would fulfill the prediction made prior to his call (ch. 4:23).
10. Did all these wonders. Before proceeding to relate the last and greatest of all the plagues, Moses pauses momentarily to glance back at the series of miracles, meditating as it were on their failure to move the stubborn will of Pharaoh. On the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, see on ch. 4:21.
1. The Lord spake. Regulations pertaining to the first of the so-called Mosaic institutions are recorded in this chapter. It should be noticed that neither Moses nor Aaron introduced legislation of his own, either here or later. The whole religious and civil system announced to Israel by Moses before the Exodus, and after, was revealed to him. He was not the originator of the laws in the Pentateuch that bear his name, but merely the appointed instrument through which God’s will was made known to His people.
In the land of Egypt. Since the greater part of the Mosaic legislation was given at Mt. Sinai, Moses emphasizes that this ordinance, the Passover, was instituted prior to the Exodus.
2. This month. Sometimes, as here, designated as “the first month of the year” (Ex. 40:2, 17; Lev. 23:5; etc.), also called Abib (Ex. 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1). Abib, generally falling in our month of April, means “ear-month,” owing to the fact that grain was then in the ear. After the captivity, Babylonian calendar names were adopted and Abib became Nisan (see Neh. 2:1; Esther 3:7). The new ordinance implies that the Israelite year had hitherto begun at a different time, probably with the month later called Tishri, which corresponds to our September or October. Henceforth two reckonings were employed, one for sacred, the other for civil, purposes, the first month of each year being the seventh month of the other, though the numbers always ran from Nisan as the first. Abib, “the month of ears,” became now the first month of the ecclesiastical year, and Tishri became its seventh, likewise honored by important feasts later instituted at Sinai. The civil year, beginning with the month of Tishri, was never abandoned by the Israelites and is still in use among the Jews today. Its existence can be traced through the entire OT period. It was perpetuated by the Jews in the belief that God created the world in the fall of the year.
3. In the tenth day. Though the lamb designated for the Passover feast was not to be slain and eaten before the 14th day of the month (v. 6), preparations for the feast were to be started 4 days in advance.
A lamb. The Hebrew word is applicable to both sheep and goats, without limit as to age. However, by enactment the age was fixed (see v. 5) at one year, and a man was free to select either a lamb or a goat (v. 5). It is interesting that the Hebrews in general preferred a lamb to a kid, and with one recorded exception (2 Chron. 35:7), seem never to have used anything else for the Passover ritual.
4. If the household. At a later time Jewish tradition fixed at ten the number of persons for whom one lamb was to be apportioned, and ruled also that all members of the family, men, women and children, must participate in the activities of the feast. The lamb, according to Jewish sources, was usually slain between the 9th hour (c. 3 p.m.) and the 11th hour (c. 5 p.m.).
Every man according to his eating. When provision was made for those who were to participate, consideration was to be given to the amount each one would be likely to eat. Children and the aged were not to be counted in the same way as men in the vigor of life. Consequently, more than two families might unite for this purpose.
5. Without blemish. Freedom from blemish and injury not only befitted the sacredness of the purpose to which the animals were to be devoted, but was a symbol of the moral integrity of the One represented by the sacrifice. A devout spirit would teach a man that the “blind,” the “lame,” and the “sick” would not be acceptable to God (Mal. 1:8). The law afterward expressly prohibited the use of imperfect animals for obligatory sacrifices, though they might be presented as freewill offerings (Lev. 22:20-25). Freedom from blemish was especially important in a victim intended to typify Christ.
A male. This requirement was made because the lamb stood in the place of the first-born male of the family.
Of the first year. The animals to be selected were probably older than 7 days (see Ex. 22:30; Lev. 22:27), but should not in any case exceed the age of 12 months.
6. The whole assembly. The head of each family was to offer the sacrifice for himself and for his family. Thus, no one outside the family intervened between it and God. This provision was in recognition of the fact that Israel was a nation of priests, as are Christians today (Rev. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:5, 9). The institution of the Levitical priesthood came at a later time (Ex. 32:26-29; Deut. 10:8).
In the evening. The Hebrew words of this phrase read, literally, “between the two evenings.” This provision has been explained in two ways. Some have said that the first “evening” begins with sunset and that the second begins with the end of twilight. The medieval Jewish scholar Eben Ezra considered that twilight lasted for approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes. The command of Deut. 16:6, “Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun,” seems to support this view. Others have regarded the first “evening” as beginning when the sun begins visibly to decline from the zenith, at about three o’clock in the afternoon, and the second evening as beginning at sunset. In support of this view various texts have been quoted, such as Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3, which refer to the Passover as being on the 14th of the month. If the slaughtering, they say, took place after sunset, it would then fall on the 15th of Nisan, not the 14th. The prevailing custom in the time of Christ agreed with this explanation; hence, Passover lambs were slain in the late afternoon, approximately the time when the true “Lamb of God” died for guilty man on the cross (1 Cor. 5:7; Matt. 27:45-50).
Since time must necessarily be allowed for the preparation of the paschal meal, which was to be over before midnight, and since the word “evening” in Hebrew, as well as in other languages, is not limited to the time after sunset, the custom of slaying the animal in the afternoon may already have been in use long before the ecclesiastical authorities of the rabbinical age gave it their official approval. According to Josephus it was the custom in his day to offer the lamb at about three o’clock in the afternoon (Antiquities xiv. 4. 3).
7. Take of the blood. The blood represents the life (Lev. 17:11), and as the very essence of the sacrifice it was ever regarded as the special symbol of atonement, which the sacrifices typified. Since the paschal “lamb” was to redeem the “house,” which in Hebrew also means “family,” the sign of the atonement was to be conspicuously displayed.
Strike it. This was to be done by dipping a bunch of hyssop in the blood and thus sprinkling it upon the door frame (see Ex. 12:22). That this sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb was a symbol of the sacrifice and atonement made by the death of Jesus Christ is clearly implied in the NT (see 1 Peter 1:2; Rom. 5:8, 9; Heb. 9:13, 14; 13:12). It is to be noted that no blood was sprinkled on the threshold, perhaps in harmony with the thought that a man should not tread “under foot the Son of God,” nor count “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing” (Heb. 10:29). That the sprinkling with blood was to be regarded as an act of purification is evident from the fact that a hyssop branch was used for the purpose (Ex. 12:22). Sprinkling with hyssop is prescribed only in connection with purification (Lev. 14:49-52; Num. 19:18, 19; Ps. 51:7; PP 275).
In Egypt the Israelites had no common altar, and for this reason the houses in which they assembled for the Passover were consecrated, and the individuals found in them were preserved when the destroyer passed by. Thus the sprinkling of blood on the doorposts and the lintel became a sign of deliverance. God promised to spare every house so marked through faith in this promise. After settlement in the land of Canaan the paschal lamb was to be slain and the Passover celebrated by all the people at one place, which God would choose, rather than in the various towns and villages (Deut. 16:5, 6). All males over 12 years of age were required to come to Jerusalem for this purpose. In Egypt, obviously, the Passover was celebrated under unusual circumstances. Whether the ritual of sprinkling blood at the door was perpetuated, perhaps in modified form, is not known.
8. Roast with fire. The meat of sacrificial meals was commonly boiled (1 Sam. 2:14, 15), but for the paschal lamb specific directions were given not to eat it raw or boil it, but to roast it (see Ex. 12:9). The reasons may have been that roasting was easier than boiling and that it would have been difficult to boil the “lamb” without cutting it into pieces, a procedure that seems also to have been prohibited (see Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; John 19:36).
Unleavened bread. The roasted lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread, for leaven produces fermentation, a natural symbol of impurity and moral corruption. For this reason leaven was also excluded from cereal sacrifices as defiling (Lev. 2:11). That Paul understood leaven in this sense is seen from his interpretation of the Passover as a type of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7, 8).
With bitter herbs. That “bitter herbs” is the correct translation of a Hebrew word meaning literally “bitter [thing]s” cannot reasonably be doubted. Though it is not known what kind of “herbs” were used in Egypt, Palestinian Jews later used two varieties of lettuce, a kind of thistle, endive, and cress. Lettuce and endive are native to Egypt and Palestine. The latter may be found from the beginning of the winter months to the end of March, and lettuce in April and May. This probably accounts for the fact that the Jews considered these plants necessary ingredients of the Passover meal. Whatever bitter herbs were used, it is obvious that they were designed to remind the participants of their bondage and bitter suffering in the land of Egypt.
9. Eat not of it raw. This injunction was necessary in view of the fact that pagan peoples often ate raw flesh at their sacrificial meals. As to the prohibition against boiling the paschal lamb, see on v. 8.
His head with his legs. Ancient Jewish expositors correctly understood this to mean that the lamb was to be roasted whole, including both head and thighs (v. 46).
The purtenance. The viscera were to be roasted along with the rest of the lamb, the former first being cleansed. The preparation of the lamb typified the fact that the body of Jesus was not to be broken (see John 19:33, 36).
10. Let nothing of it remain. All the flesh was to be consumed at one meal lest putrefaction set in. Since Christ’s body was not to see corruption (Acts 2:27, 31; 13:35-37), the symbolic lamb should not either. If the paschal lamb should prove too much for the number of participants, the remainder was to be destroyed, in order to prevent profanation of the sacred symbols of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ.
11. Your loins girded. Ancient representations show Semites wearing long, loose garments, still the style in many Eastern countries. For work, or travel with a load to carry, the fore part of the garment is folded up and tucked into the girdle.
Your shoes. Specifically mentioned, it not being customary to wear shoes inside the house or at meals. Some Jews have regarded these directions as of perpetual obligation. The general view, however, has been that these instructions applied to the first occasion only, when alone they served a useful purpose.
Eat it in haste. Not knowing the moment they were to set out on their journey, and having to burn the bones of the lamb before their departure, they were to complete the meal in the shortest possible time.
The Lord’s passover. With these words the significance of the meal is emphasized. The people were to realize that this was not an ordinary meal, nor was it merely a sacrificial repast such as they had known. For one thing, the lives of their first-born depended upon compliance with the regulations. It was, furthermore, the symbol of their deliverance, first, from bondage in Egypt, and second, in a wider sense they did not as yet understand, from the bondage of sin.
12. All the gods. The execution of judgment on all the gods of Egypt can best be understood when it is remembered that many animals were deified and worshiped. Some domestic animals had already suffered as a result of previous plagues, but now every first-born beast was to be slain. This plague would affect not only the sacred bull Apis, a first-born animal, but also many sacred cows, rams, crocodiles, snakes, cats, etc. Though many of these creatures were of no commercial or utilitarian value, their sudden and simultaneous death would be certain to impress the Egyptians with their own impotence (see on chs. 7:17; 8:2; see also PP 333).
13. I will pass over you. In passing through the land of Egypt to smite all the first-born of man and beast, the Lord would “pass over,” pasach, the Israelites. This word was transliterated into Greek as pascha, from which comes our English word paschal.
14. A memorial. The directions thus far given had reference, primarily, to the first celebration of the Passover, the night preceding the Exodus. Now it is announced that the observance should be commemorated annually. In the future certain other features were to be added, such as the removal from the house of all leaven, the eating of unleavened bread for seven days after the Passover, the gathering for worship on the first and last days of the feast, and the observance of these days as days of sabbatic rest.
For ever. From ‘olam, a literal rendering of which would be “perpetually.” Inasmuch as Israel’s deliverance was of perpetual significance, their commemoration of the event was to be perpetual, so long as Israel should continue to be God’s chosen people. As a type, it was to remain in force until the coming of the antitype, Jesus Christ, who was to bring deliverance from sin. The duration of “for ever,” ‘olam, is conditional upon the nature of that to which it is applied. It may refer to that which is without either beginning or end, as, for example, God Himself, or to time which has a beginning but no end, like the eternal life of the redeemed, or it may signify a shorter period of time which has both a beginning and an end. Here, it has the latter meaning. Instituted at the time of the Exodus, the Passover remained in force until the crucifixion.
15. Seven days. The first of these seven days was the 15th of the first month (Lev. 23:6; Num. 28:17), or from the evening following the 14th day to the evening following the 21st day of the first month (Ex. 12:18).
Cut off. There are 36 instances in which an individual who had neglected some particular religious duty, is threatened with being “cut off” from the chosen people. What actually happened in such a case is not known, for no specific instance of such an occurrence is on record, nor were instructions given as to how the threat was to be carried out. Some have thought it meant a violent death, a premature death, or perhaps eternal death. In all probability it simply meant separation from the rights and privileges belonging to an Israelite. After being “cut off” the man was considered a stranger, with no share whatever in the blessings of the covenant.
Though perhaps unknown to others, a man’s misdeed would be known to God, and future compliance with the provisions of ceremonial and moral law would not of itself atone for past sins of omission or commission. The person was disfellowshiped, but whether the act was to be performed by man or by God is not clear. This “cutting off” is probably what Paul makes reference to in Rom. 9:3 (see on Gen. 17:14).
16. An holy convocation. On the 15th of Abib, or Nisan, the first of the seven days of unleavened bread following the night of the paschal meal, the people were to assemble for worship. This is the first instance in the Scriptures in which mention is made of an assembly called for such a purpose. “Holy convocation” is an exact and appropriate translation of the Hebrew term here used, and signifies an assembly called by the express command of God for the promotion of holiness.
In the seventh day. The 21st of Abib, the last of the seven days of unleavened bread, was likewise distinguished from those that intervened, as a day for “holy convocation” (see also Lev. 23:4-8). Only one other Israelite festival, the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:39-42), was of so long duration.
No manner of work. In all countries feast days were occasions when people abstained from those ordinary pursuits of life which would interfere with performance of the religious rites or duties of the day. Only among the Hebrews, however, was absolute cessation from all regular work strictly enjoined. The seventh day of the feast was a day of rest from all labor and was therefore called a “sabbath” (see Lev. 23:15), for “sabbath” means “rest.”
May be done. No “servile work” (Lev. 23:7) was permitted. But God did not intend that His people should suffer by being deprived of food, for those days were to be periods of joy and gladness of heart. Permission was therefore given to perform such duties as are necessary to the normal maintenance of life and health.
17. Your armies. More accurately, “your hosts” (RSV). Israel left Egypt unarmed and unprepared for war (PP 282). For the various expressions used and regulations mentioned in vs. 17-20, see on vs. 14-16.
19. A stranger. The non-Israelite, who lived either temporarily or permanently among the Hebrew people, but without accepting their religious beliefs and practices. The regulation prohibiting the use of leavened bread was equally binding upon these “strangers.”
Born in the land. An Israelite. “The land” must refer to Canaan, which was regarded as the true home of Israel from the time it was assigned by God to the posterity of Abraham (Gen. 15:18). The term “born in the land” was applied to natural-born Israelites, although all those living in the time of Moses were in reality born in Egypt. They were descendants of Isaac and Jacob, who were born in the land of Canaan and had received it from God as a permanent home.
21. The elders. See on ch. 3:16.
Draw out. This probably refers to the custom of shepherds and shearers of drawing a sheep from the flock by catching its leg with a shepherd’s crook. As to the lamb, see on v. 3.
22. Hyssop. The Biblical hyssop, most authorities agree, is the gray-green marjoram, Origanum maru, now known in Palestine as za‘tar. This little plant with a pungent, fragrant smell, a taste something like peppermint, and masses of tiny white flowers, grows commonly on rocks and terrace walls. It has thick, hairy leaves and branches well adapted to holding liquids. It is used today as a spice or condiment and has some repute as a medicine. The Samaritans still use a bunch of za‘tar at their Passover ceremonies to smear the blood of the paschal lamb upon the door frames of their houses.
In addition to its use in the Passover ritual, hyssop was employed on the day of the cleansing of a leper or a house (Lev. 14:6, 49), or one defiled by the dead, in connection with the offering of the red heifer (Num. 19:6, 17). Moreover, Moses used hyssop when he “sprinkled both the book, and all the people” at the ratification of the covenant (Heb. 9:19). Hyssop thus became symbolic of cleansing (Ps. 51:7). See also on v. 7.
None of you shall go out. In this night of judgment there would be no safety anywhere except behind the bloodstained door. As for the Hebrew there was no assurance of safety beyond the protection of the blood of the lamb, so for the Christian there is no other salvation than the blood of Jesus Christ, the true “Lamb of God” (John 1:36; Acts 4:12).
26. What mean ye? Moses assumed that the paschal ceremonies would arouse curiosity, and that each generation in succession would wish to know their origin and meaning. The ceremony is called a “service,” or task, inasmuch as it was performed in fulfillment of a divine command.
27. Worshipped. Upon hearing these instructions the people, in the person of their elders (see v. 21,) “bowed,” literally, “made obeisance.” Thus they expressed their faith and manifested gratitude for the deliverance they were soon to experience.
28. So did they. The long series of miracles wrought by Moses and Aaron had so impressed the people that they obeyed immediately and unquestioningly. Inasmuch as the command was issued prior to the 10th of Abib (v. 3,) and the paschal lamb was not to be slain before the 14th, several days of preparation are covered by v. 28.
29. At midnight. Literally, in “the half of the night.” The day, though known to the Israelites, had not been announced to the king, and this uncertainty must have added to his anxiety. When Moses had left the obstinate king every courtier was no doubt frightened at the prospect of losing his first-born. However, when several days passed by without the fulfillment of the threat, many people, perhaps even the king himself, may have thought that nothing was likely to happen. There must ever have been present, though, the fear that Moses’ word might come true.
The firstborn of Pharaoh. If Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (see Introduction), it was his eldest son, the brother of his successor, Thutmose IV, who was slain during that night of horror. No non-Biblical records of this event are extant; in fact, the ancient Egyptians customarily passed over in silence any humiliating experience. Nevertheless, Thutmose IV left inferential evidence of the unexpected death of his brother and his own elevation to the status of crown prince. The stele of the Sphinx at Giza records that he had the sand removed from that ancient monument in gratitude for the divine appointment he unexpectedly received in its shadow. In the inscription he tells of hunting near the Sphinx on a certain day. While he was taking his siesta in its shade, this “great god” (the Sphinx) appeared to him in a vision and spoke to him as a father addresses a son, revealing that he was to be the future king of Egypt. The fact that this incident is recorded on a stone monument shows that Thutmose IV had not originally been designated crown prince, nor had he expected to become king. It reveals also that he attributed his accession to the throne to divine interposition. Although his elder brother, the original crown prince, is not mentioned, there is no doubt among those acquainted with Egyptian inscriptions that something unusual happened to this unmentioned eldest son of Amenhotep II.
We cannot expect a satisfactory answer from Egyptian records as to what happened to the young man. But on the assumption that Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the death of his eldest son under the tenth plague would result in the elevation of the younger son, later Thutmose IV, to heir apparent to the throne. To avoid attributing his elevation to a disaster the God of the Hebrews brought on the country, Thutmose IV could have invented and published the story of a supposed heavenly vision. Irregular regal succession was customarily explained as such a divine interference on the part of the great Egyptian gods. When Hatshepsut followed her father on the throne, the announcement was made that the god Amen had begotten her and commanded her to be the ruler of Egypt. When Thutmose III, without legal right to the throne, was pronounced king during a temple revolt, a specific decree of the god Amen was published by way of authority for his irregular succession.
The firstborn of the captive. This phrase is parallel to that of ch. 11:5, “The firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill.” In both cases the general meaning is that all classes of people suffered, from highest to lowest. However, it is also true that captives were in some cases employed as mill workers (see Judges 16:21).
All the firstborn of cattle. The word here translated “cattle” includes also “beasts” in general, as in Lev. 11:2, where the same Hebrew word has more accurately been rendered “beasts.” The plague was not limited to domestic animals. See also on ch. 11:5.
30. Pharaoh rose up. The visit of the angel of death to the host of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:35) seems not to have been suspected until the survivors arose the next morning. In Egypt, however, every household was apparently aroused from sleep at midnight, when the first-born suddenly fell ill and died.
A great cry. See on Ex. 11:6, of which this was the fulfillment. The general cry that arose throughout the length and breadth of Egypt at that midnight hour was accompanied by urgent insistence that the Israelites should depart at once (v. 33). By now the Egyptians were no doubt fearful that they would all die should the Israelites remain.
31. He called for Moses and Aaron. The “cry” of the people had no doubt been heard in the palace, and the king was aware of the popular demand that the Israelites be sent out of the land. The entire country now suffered to the limit of endurance because of the stubbornness of its monarch. Realizing that he must act at once in order to avert more severe judgments, Pharaoh sent his chief officers (see ch. 11:8) while it was still night to summon the hated leaders of the Hebrews, whom he had refused to see again (ch. 10:28).
32. Bless me also. Pharaoh’s surrender was now complete. Not only did he command them to leave the country at once and take their possessions with them, but he placed a request before the two brothers that they could scarcely have expected. Their words had brought a curse upon him; it might be that their words could also bring blessing. There is no record of how his request was received, but that it should have been made at all is a striking indication of how far his pride was humbled.
33. The Egyptians were urgent. The popular demand, first blended with the cry of lament (v. 30), quickly became general and insistent. The Hebrews were not only to leave, but to leave immediately. The cry, “We be all dead men,” reveals the fear that judgment might not stop with the death of the first-born, but that the entire population might be slain and the land taken over by the Hebrews.
34. Took their dough. This reflects the urgency of the Egyptians. The Israelites were probably about to bake bread for their journey. Though warned by Moses several days earlier, the people seem not to have expected so hurried a departure, and their preparations were not as yet complete. Though they had been told that for seven days after partaking of the paschal lamb they should eat unleavened bread (v. 15), many had either not taken this injunction to heart or had planned to bake leavened bread for the days that would follow the seven days of unleavened bread. However, the pressure of necessity obliged them to be content with unleavened bread, or as it is called in Deut. 16:3, “the bread of affliction.”
35. They borrowed. Literally, “asked.” On the translation of the Hebrew word sha’al, rendered in the KJV as “borrowed,” see on ch. 3:22. The word sha’al means “to ask” or “to require,” but not “to borrow.”
36. They lent. As the word “borrowed” is a mistranslation, so is the word “lent.” The Hebrew word in question is a passive form of the same verb sha’al, which means in its active form “to ask.” The passive form conveys the meaning not only of being asked but also of granting a request. The thought of the text is this: “The Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked” (RSV).
37. From Rameses. That “Rameses” here is the same city as the “Rameses” of ch. 1:11 can hardly be doubted, since the Hebrew words differ only in their vocalization, which was inserted in the Hebrew Bible about the 7th century of the Christian Era. Rameses was the city for the building of which Israelite slave labor had largely been used. As stated in the comment on ch. 1:11, the name given here is probably a later name for the city of Tanis (Avaris). Two hundred years after the Exodus, Tanis received the name Rameses, bestowed by its great renovator, Ramses II. The ruins of this city are known today under the Arabic name San el-Hagar. It lies in the northeastern Delta, about 27 mi. northwest of the city of El Qantara on the Suez Canal.
To Succoth. Earlier commentators incorrectly identified this, the first halting place of the Israelites after their departure from Rameses, with Pithom. Scholars are now generally agreed that the Hebrew name here given is a transliteration of the Egyptian Tjeku, mentioned in Egyptian documents as a border station. This place has been identified with Tell el-Maskhuta in the eastern part of the Wadi Tumilat, about 32 mi. southeast of Tanis or Rameses (see above).
Six hundred thousand. Commentators point to certain difficulties in the number here given. Seeing that only males above 20 years of age were included (Num. 1:3-43), the total population might be computed at several million. The problem is, how could so many people, with their untold thousands of animals, pass through the narrow valleys of the Sinai Peninsula without stretching out for hundreds of miles, to say nothing of finding even one camping place large enough to accommodate them?
Some cite Biblical evidence that Israel was relatively small and weak—too few to occupy the land if it were opened to them in one year (Ex. 23:29, 30; Num. 13:28-33; Deut. 1:26-30; 7:7, 17-22).
Others explain that numbers in the Hebrew original may have been confusing. For example, are the numerals for 100 and 1,000 together to be understood as 100 times 1,000 or as 100 plus 1,000? (See Vol. III, p. 123.)
Some suggest that we may not understand accurately the Hebrew word translated “thousand,” ’lph, or ’eleph. The word ’eleph can also mean “family,” as used in Judges 6:15. In other places it seems to mean “family” or “clan” (1 Sam. 10:19; 23:23; Micah 5:2). Furthermore, ’aluph, a word having the same consonants as ’eleph, but different vowels, means “friend” or “tribal chief.” Some say therefore that the phrase traditionally rendered “six hundred thousand” actually means “six hundred families”; that it is more probable that the 12 families who entered Egypt with Jacob should increase to 600 families in 215 years than that the 69 males (see on Gen. 46:26, 27), should increase to 600,000 men in four generations (Gen. 15:16).
Some have explained that 600,000 men could have resulted from natural increase if every son, like Jacob, had had 12 sons. Against this theoretical solution is the fact that not one of Jacob’s descendants whose sons are recorded had that many sons.
Another meaning of ’eleph is given as “military unit” (Num. 31:5, 14, etc.). Therefore some say that the Israelite forces consisted of 600 army units, each from a clan or tribal division.
Ellen G. White’s reference to “more than two million souls” and “millions” who came out of Egypt and died in the wilderness (PP 334, 410) harmonizes with the rendering of the words for 600,000 as translated in the English versions here and in other texts such as ch. 38:25, 26.
38. A mixed multitude. Various attempts have been made to identify the “mixed multitude.” Some have thought them to be native Egyptians who, impressed by the power of the God of the Hebrews, sought a share in the blessings of those who served Him, and who desired at the same time to escape the tyranny of the king. Others have taken them to be remnants of the Hyksos or other Semites who had been detained by the Pharaohs, and who seized this opportunity to leave Egypt. Some, at least, were the descendants of Hebrews who had intermarried with the Egyptians (1 SP 243). Although we do not know the identity of these non-Israelites who joined the triumphant Hebrews in this hour of opportunity, they appear again later in the narrative. They were always first to regret their departure from Egypt and to lust after its delicacies (Num. 11:4, 5).
39. They baked. The Israelites paused briefly at Succoth to make final preparations for the long desert journey. The length of their stay here is not mentioned, but was long enough for them to bake the bread they would need for the days immediately ahead.
40. Four hundred and thirty years. The discussion on Gen. 15:13 points out that Paul’s statement in Gal. 3:17 and other evidence make it clear that this 430 years includes the period from Abraham’s call to leave Haran to Jacob’s actual descent into Egypt 215 years later, and that the interval between Jacob’s entry into Egypt and the Exodus was another 215 years. Since in the time of Moses, Palestine was considered a part of the Egyptian empire, it is not strange to find an author of that period including Canaan in the term “Egypt.” Not being familiar with the political situation in Moses’ time, but feeling that the 430 years included the patriarchal sojourn in Canaan, the translators of the LXX specifically included within this period the time of their sojourn “in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.” The prophecy that the fourth generation of those who had entered Egypt would leave it (Gen. 15:16), and its recorded fulfillment (Ex. 6:16-20), make impossible any other explanation of the 430-year period.
42. This is that night. That is, the night of the eating of the Passover meal, concerning which directions had already been given (see vs. 6-11, 14). Its mingled horror and rejoicing could never be erased from the memory of a people who owed their birth as a nation to that memorable night.
43. This is the ordinance. Certain additional regulations concerning the Passover were given at Succoth. These were rendered necessary because of the many non-Israelites who had joined the Hebrews, and deal mainly with these “strangers.” Provision was made whereby they might participate in the paschal feast and share its blessings.
No stranger. That is, one of an alien race who wished to retain his status as a foreigner and to remain uncircumcised. Since the Passover was significant as the festival commemorating Israel’s birth as a nation, it would naturally be inappropriate for a foreigner to participate in it.
44. When thou hast circumcised him. It was not through natural descent but by virtue of a divine call that Israel had become the people of the Lord. Being destined, in that capacity, to be a blessing to all nations, Israel was not to assume an exclusive attitude toward foreigners. They were to welcome those who desired to join them in the worship and service of God. Being incorporated politically and economically, these “strangers” were also to be accepted religiously through the rite of circumcision. Thus they became one with God’s people and were permitted to participate in the Passover ritual (see v. 48).
45. A foreigner and an hired servant. Temporary residents and servants working for wages were not to eat of the Passover, for their relationship to Israel might be dissolved at any time.
46. Neither shall ye break a bone thereof. This precept shows clearly that the Passover lamb was a type of Christ, and that it was understood as such in the early Christian church is clear from John 19:33, 36. Although the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world was crucified as a common criminal, none of His bones were broken, in spite of the fact that it was the usual custom to do so. This was done to His two companions. Just as the crucified Antitype was treated differently from other crucified men, so was the Passover lamb prepared differently. The bones of other lambs eaten during the year might be broken to extract the marrow.
48. When a stranger. This injunction dealing with proselytes is similar to the one given in v. 44.
51. It came to pass. This verse belongs to the narrative of the next chapter, to which it forms the introduction.
2. All the firstborn. This command was given on the very day of the Exodus (see ch. 12:51). The Hebrew word here used limits the command to first-born males, who alone had been in danger from the tenth plague. The additional explanation, “whatsoever openeth the womb,” shows that only those first-born sons were meant who were at the same time their mothers’ first-born children. Their consecration was closely connected with the Passover. Inasmuch as the Lord had delivered the first-born of Israel, they became His special property and were to be dedicated to Him.
3. Remember this day. This injunction came with great force at the close of the first day’s journey (see ch. 12:37), when the Hebrews had so signally experienced the good hand of their God. The Egyptians not only permitted them to depart, but also helped speed them on their way. Well might the Israelites feel that they had been released from “the house of bondage.”
4. Came ye out. Literally, “you are going out.” The RSV rendering, “you are to go forth,” though grammatically possible, contradicts the fact that the Israelites had already started on their journey (see ch. 12:37, 51).
In the month Abib. The name of the month is here given for the first time. On its meaning and place in the ecclesiastical calendar of the Hebrews see on ch. 12:2.
5. The land of the Canaanites. See on ch. 3:8.
Which he sware. See Gen. 15:18; 24:7; cf. Ex. 6:8.
This service. See Ex. 12:25.
6. Various expressions and regulations already given in ch. 12, especially in vs. 15, 16, 19, 26, 27, are repeated here in vs. 6-8.
9. For a memorial. Some scholars think that this instruction was not carried out literally until the time of the kings, or possibly even the Maccabees. Clear non-Biblical evidence that the Jews wore portions of the law fastened to their left arms and foreheads comes from about the time of Christ. The Jews called them tephillin, which has been explained to mean “prayers,” whereas the Greek designation was phulakterion (Matt. 23:5), from which the English word phylactery is derived. These consisted of little pouches made from the skin of ceremonially clean animals, sewed to leather bands by which they were strapped to the forehead between and immediately above the eyes and to the left arms of males who had reached the age of 13. The four compartments of the head phylactery each contained a strip of parchment bearing one of the four following passages faultlessly written: Ex. 13:2-10; 13:11-16; Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21—30 verses altogether. The arm phylactery had but one pocket, yet contained the same four passages written on one skin. It was tied to the inside of the left arm a little above the elbow, so that the Scripture passages might be near the heart. This was done, presumably in compliance with the command, “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart” (Deut. 6:6). Phylacteries were customarily worn by pious Jews during the daily morning prayer, but by some reputedly devout men all day long. With a pretense of piety they often made their phylacteries more conspicuous by broadening the bands, a practice severely criticized by Christ in Matt. 23:5. Even now conservative Jews wear phylacteries.
It is known that Egyptians often wore amulets on their bodies in the form of miniature papyrus scrolls, on which magic words were written. The Israelites in later centuries may have adopted this superstitious practice from the Egyptians. But God did not intend that the Jews should make a literal application of the command here given by binding certain portions of the law to their arms and foreheads (DA 612). He spoke exclusively of the acceptance of right principles in the mind and heart, the intellect and emotions, and of the application of these principles to the life.
10. This ordinance. That is, the ordinance of unleavened bread (see vs. 3, 5, 7; cf. ch. 12:14, 24).
12. Set apart. This expression is particularly appropriate in the case of firstborn animals, which would have to be separated from the rest of the flock or herd and put aside for the Lord, so as not to be lost among the other lambs, kids, and calves. Since they were not to be sacrificed immediately (Lev. 22:27), it was necessary to keep them separate until disposed of as God commanded.
13. Every firstling of an ass. The injunction of Num. 18:15 to redeem every unclean beast indicates that the ass stands in this regulation as a representative of unclean beasts in general.
All the firstborn of man. The first-born sons of Israel were also to be dedicated to the Lord. This was not to be done in the manner of the heathen, by slaying and burning infants upon an altar, but by presenting them to the Lord as living sacrifices, devoting all their powers of body and mind to His service. Later, God separated the tribe of Levi to His service as a substitute for the first-born of the other tribes (see Ex. 32:26-28; Num. 3:12, 13). At the same time, every first-born Israelite was to be “redeemed,” or bought back from the Lord, by the payment of five shekels of silver, as prescribed in Num. 3:47; 18:16. In various countries, both ancient and modern, it has been the custom to dedicate the first-born son to religious pursuits.
15. Hardly let us go. Literally, “when Pharaoh hardened himself [his heart] against sending us away.” The same word previously used for the hardening of the king’s heart appears here also (see on ch. 4:21).
17. Through the way. Literally, “toward the way” (see on v. 18). At Succoth, Israel’s first place of encampment, their organization, for which some provision had already been made (PP 281), was probably completed. The shortest and most direct route from Egypt to Canaan would have been by the coast road to Gaza, which was about 160 mi. from Succoth. Before they were ready to take possession of the land of Canaan they must first be welded together as a nation and learn to trust God, whom they scarcely knew as yet. A race of slaves, they were unarmed and unaccustomed to war (PP 282). A spiritual, intellectual, and political transformation must take place before they were prepared to cooperate with God in the conquest of Canaan.
They return to Egypt. How very real the danger was that at the slightest defeat or discouragement the Israelites would turn back and submit themselves again to servitude, is shown by their attitude on later occasions (see Num. 14:4). Had they known what lay ahead they would never have been willing to leave Egypt. In all probability they expected to be in Canaan within a few weeks.
18. God led the people about. That is, instead of permitting the Israelites to proceed by the most direct route God led them by a more circuitous one. God had earlier informed Moses that the people of Israel were to assemble at Mt. Horeb after their departure from Egypt (ch. 3:12). He therefore knew in advance the route they were to follow, the very route, no doubt, he had recently traveled from Midian to Egypt. Accordingly, the people turned southward from Succoth (PP 282), and reached the edge of the wilderness at Etham (v. 20). It was only after they had gone beyond Etham and entered the wilderness itself that the pillar of cloud appeared to guide them (v. 21).
Through the way of. More accurately, “toward,” or “in the way to” (see Eze. 8:5; 21:2; etc., where the same Hebrew word, derek, is translated “toward”). Here, as in Ex. 13:17, Moses does not refer to their ultimate destination but rather to the route they followed immediately upon leaving Egypt. They were not to go “toward” Philistia, but rather “toward” or “in the direction of” the Red Sea. The Hebrew is reflected more accurately thus: “by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea” (RSV). The wilderness to which Moses made reference lay between Egypt and the Red Sea.
The wilderness of the Red sea. That is, the wilderness lying between Egypt and the Red Sea (see above), not the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula. This is clear because of the following facts: (1) The Hebrew grammatical construction, as noted above, indicates the Red Sea as the objective of this stage of the journey. (2) The parallel construction of v. 17, which reads literally, “toward the land of the Philistines,” requires that v. 18 mean “toward the Red Sea.” (3) Moses immediately designates the “wilderness” as the one which they entered upon leaving Etham (v. 20). (4) This is the wilderness indicated by Ellen G. White (PP 282, 283).
God’s purpose in selecting the Red Sea route was twofold: (1) The Israelites were unarmed and untrained in the art of war, and thus unprepared to encounter the warlike Philistines (see on v. 17). This reason the Israelites could understand, and it is therefore the one God gave them at this time (v. 17). (2) As God had already instructed Moses (ch. 3:12), He purposed to meet with the people at Mt. Horeb. There they were to complete their formal organization as a nation, there He would enter into covenant relationship with them as a nation, there He would impart to them His holy law, and there the sanctuary services were to be instituted. The children of Israel were not ready to understand or appreciate the need of these things, and for this reason God does not mention them at this time.
The comparative isolation of the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula was admirably adapted to the accomplishment of the purpose for which God led His people to the vicinity of Mt. Horeb. This rugged and barren peninsula is surrounded on two sides by arms of the Red Sea and on the third by the great desert of Paran. Not only would the people receive instruction He wished to impart to them, but the privations of their long and wearisome journey through the mountainous desert would provide situations in which they would have an opportunity to learn to trust Him. This was the very training they needed in preparation for the difficult task of the conquest of Canaan.
Harnessed. The word here translated “harnessed” has been interpreted in various ways. Some commentators have thought that it meant to be “armed,” “girded,” or “organized into five divisions.” Others have explained it as meaning “arrayed,” “arranged,” or marching “five abreast.” Texts such as Joshua 1:14; 4:12; Judges 7:11 have led many translators to accept the meaning “armed” (RSV, “equipped for battle”). Such a translation raises the question as to where the cast-out slaves procured the weapons, and when they received training in their use. This interpretation cannot be correct, for “they were unarmed, and unaccustomed to war” (PP 282). Whatever the correct meaning of the word translated “harnessed” in the KJV, it obviously conveys the idea that the Israelites left Egypt, not as a mob of fleeing fugitives, but as a well-organized body under a wise and determined leader (see PP 281).
19. The bones of Joseph. Although here and in the narrative of the burial of Joseph’s remains at Shechem (Joshua 24:32) no mention is made of the other sons of Jacob, Stephen’s statement before the Sanhedrin seems to imply that all the fathers “were carried over into Sychem” (Acts 7:15, 16). That the children of Israel preserved Joseph’s remains and fulfilled his request for burial in Canaan (see Gen. 50:24-26) shows that they had apparently never lost sight of the promise of deliverance.
20. Encamped in Etham. According to this text and Num. 33:6 the second Israelite encampment lay at the “edge of the wilderness.” Its site has not yet been identified. Perhaps, however, the Hebrew word Etham is a transliteration of the Egyptian khetem, “fortress.” Egyptian records inform us of the existence of a line of border fortifications from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez (see on Ex. 2:15), built with the avowed purpose of preventing the tribes of the eastern desert from entering Egypt and at the same time designed to control traffic between Egypt and Asia. Since these border fortresses lay at the edge of the eastern desert, it is possible that one of them is referred to here. In the case of Moses, at least, these border posts did not prevent a lone fugitive from slipping through and making good his escape into the desert (see on ch. 2:15), but it is obvious that the hosts of Israel could not have passed through without the consent of the guards. Pharaoh apparently never intended more than that the Hebrews should enter the eastern Egyptian desert and worship God there. Perhaps it was when the border guards reported that the Israelites were pressing on through the desert to the Red Sea that Pharaoh set out in pursuit of them (ch. 14:3; PP 283).
21. A pillar of a cloud. As an Egyptian military commander (PP 245) and as a fugitive from Pharaoh (see on ch. 2:15), Moses was already acquainted with the general route of march. Furthermore, God had instructed him that he was to lead Israel to Mt. Horeb (ch. 3:12). Nevertheless, to convince the people of God’s leadership and to guide Moses along the precise route to be followed, God personally directed their daily journey. Having stated in ch. 13:18 that God led the Israelites, Moses now explains how He did so. Ancient army commanders at times used smoke or fire signals to guide their marching forces through trackless wastelands. Israel’s pillar of cloud and fire, however, was not produced by ordinary means, but was a miraculous manifestation of the presence of Christ (1 Cor. 10:1-4, 9; PP 366) that appeared before them as they left Etham and entered the desert. There seems to have been but one “pillar” (Ex. 14:24), for even when shining in the dark it is still called “the pillar of the cloud” (v. 19) or simply “the cloud” (Num. 9:21). By day it appeared as a dark cloud, in contrast with the light of the sun, but by night as a radiant light (Num. 9:15, 16). In this cloud the Lord Himself was present with His people, and from the cloud He spoke to Moses. There the glory of the Lord, later known as the “Shekinah,” appeared (Ex. 16:10; 40:34). In a similar way the Lord had already revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush (ch. 3:2), and later appeared upon Sinai amidst thunder and lightning (ch. 19:16, 18). The fire and the cloud symbolized divine leadership and protection.
To go by day and night. Literally, “for their journeying day and night.” It should not be inferred from this statement that God intended the Israelites to keep on traveling at night as well as in the daytime. Rather, they were on their journey both day and night until such a time as they should reach their destination. As clearly stated earlier in the verse, the pillar of cloud was to guide them by day along their way and to illuminate their camp at night. The added expression, “to go by day and night,” clarifies the fact that the cloud never left them. It includes the camping at night as well as the traveling by day. Both the KJV and the RSV imply, to the contrary, that they traveled by night, a concept not justified by the context.
22. He took not away. Literally, “gave not away,” or “did not depart,” RSV. The last distinct mention of the cloud is in Num. 16:42, although Num. 20:6 may possibly allude to it. From Neh. 9:19 and Num. 9:15-23 we conclude that the pillar of cloud and fire remained with Israel throughout their wilderness wanderings. Since there is no mention of it in the book of Joshua, it may have disappeared just before the crossing of the Jordan, at the end of the 40 years.
The fact that the pillar of cloud remained with Israel throughout their long journey, even when they were unfaithful, is assurance to the Christian that God will not soon forsake him on his way through life. The promise of Jesus to His disciples, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20), has never failed anyone willing to follow where He leads. There is no experience of life in which God withdraws Himself. He is present in the darkest nights of misery and disappointment as well as on the brightest days of gladness and success. True, we need Him in the night, when conscious of our need, but perhaps even more during the day, when we are prone to feel confident of self. The visible pillar is no longer to be seen, but God’s presence can still be felt in the experience of the individual, the church, and the nations. Blessed is the man whose eyes are not so dim but that he can discern the leading of the Lord.
2. Turn and encamp. Hitherto the march of the Israelites had been in a general southeasterly direction. Another day’s journey in the same direction would have carried them well beyond the eastern border of Egypt. But God ordered a change that must have seemed to them strange and unaccountable. They were to set their course in a southwesterly direction, which would soon place the Red Sea between them and their destination. Although the geographical location of the next camping place is here described in considerable detail, not one of the places named has yet been identified. The name Pi-hahiroth is apparently Egyptian, but its meaning and site remain uncertain.
Between Migdol and the sea. Migdol means “tower,” or “fortress.” This no doubt refers to a number of localities along the eastern border of Egypt (see Num. 33:7; Jer. 44:1; 46:14; Eze. 29:10; 30:6). These “migdols” were probably not different cities, but strongholds that formed part of the border fortification system (see on Ex. 13:20).
Over against Baal-zephon. This place is unknown, though the name Baal-zephon was applied also to a Canaanite deity. It means, literally, the “Baal,” or “lord of the north,” a god mentioned on Egyptian monuments as well as in north Canaanite inscriptions. One Phoenician text declares him to be the chief god of the Egyptian Delta city of Daphnae (Biblical Tahpanhes, modern Tel Defenneh). The place mentioned here may have received its name from this Canaanite god, whose shrine or sanctuary, to which peoples of the eastern desert came to worship, was in the town.
So exact a geographical description, unique in the Pentateuch, suggests, first, that Pi-hahiroth itself was not well known, and, second, that the author of Exodus was familiar with the geography of the country. No late writer could have ventured to give such local detail.
3. Pharaoh will say. This passage explains the purpose of God in leading the Israelites in so unusual a direction (see on v. 2). To human judgment this route appeared to be the most foolish that could have been taken. Canaan lay to the northeast of Egypt, yet the pillar of cloud led them in a southwesterly direction when they reached the eastern borders of Egypt. It would be only natural for Pharaoh, learning of the strange route the Israelites had taken, to think that they had lost their way and were wandering about in confusion in the eastern Egyptian desert. Escape now appeared impossible. God, however, had arranged this very situation that Egypt and the surrounding nations might learn to fear and respect His name (see v. 4).
5. Why have we done this? Pharaoh had apparently intended his permission to be limited to a three-day journey into the eastern Egyptian desert. When it became apparent that the Israelites were pressing rapidly through the desert toward the Red Sea, Pharaoh set out in pursuit (PP 283). A short respite from suffering had given him time to recover from the horrors of the tenth plague, and he now regretted his rash act. When no further calamity followed the death of the first-born, the Egyptians may have thought the power of the Hebrew God broken, and of themselves as once more lords over their land and masters of the situation. The loss of a large body of laborers would upset the economy of the country and bring hardship upon those who remained.
7. Six hundred chosen chariots. With the Eighteenth Dynasty, chariots came to be standard Egyptian army equipment. From that time on the kings always went forth to war in chariots. Two royal chariots of the Eighteenth Dynasty have survived to the present day, and their construction is therefore well known. They were open at the rear, and consisted of a semicircular standing board made of wood, encircled by a rim that rose in a graceful curve to the height of approximately 21/2 ft. above the standing board. The chariots had two wheels and a tongue, and were drawn by two small horses. They were usually manned by two men, a warrior and a charioteer.
Captains. In Hebrew, as well as in other Semitic languages, “the third one,” here probably meaning “the third one on the chariot.” In Assyria it became the technical term for the driver of the chariot. In Hebrew, however, the word seems to have been synonymous with “distinguished warrior” (see 2 Kings 9:25; etc.). Inasmuch as two men are regularly depicted on Egyptian chariots, it would seem that the word here translated “captain” should be rendered “distinguished warrior.” The 600 chosen chariots with their crews probably belonged to the king’s bodyguard, and could be made ready for action, such as the pursuit of the Israelites, at the moment’s notice.
8. The Lord hardened. A significant fact mentioned three times (vs. 4, 8, 17) in connection with Pharaoh’s pursuit of the Israelites (see on ch. 4:21).
With an high hand. That is, in triumph over the pursuing Egyptians. The RSV renders this expression as “defiantly.” In Num. 33:3, where the same expression occurs, the RSV gives it as “triumphantly.”
9. Horsemen. Since the Egyptians had no cavalry at that time, though a single horseman is once depicted on a small monument, the word translated “horsemen” should rather be rendered “riders,” or “mounted men,” that is, those who drove the chariots. Understood thus, the text accords remarkably with the native monuments of that time, which represent the Egyptian army as consisting of two kinds of troops, chariotry and infantry.
Overtook them encamping. It is uncertain whether Pharaoh overtook the Israelites soon after they had pitched camp by the shores of the Red Sea, or whether they had already been there a day or even longer. Although Pharaoh obviously set out in pursuit of the Israelites at some time after their departure, he would be able to cover the distance of 80 mi. from Tanis (Rameses) to the northwestern shore of the Red Sea much more rapidly than the Israelites could possibly have done. It would have taken him at least two days to do so, the approximate time required by the Israelites to travel across the desert from Etham (see on v. 5). The description of events at the approach of the Egyptians seems to imply that the Israelites had barely halted to pitch camp when they discovered the Egyptians pursuing them (vs. 9, 10; PP 284).
10. They were sore afraid. To human eyes their plight appeared hopeless. Shut in on the east by the sea, on the south by a rugged mountain, on the west by mountainous deserts, and on the north by the pursuing Egyptians, they probably concluded that escape was impossible. Furthermore, they were unarmed and unprepared for battle. Finally, they had not yet learned to place their trust in the power and protection of God.
Cried out unto the Lord. Had their prayer been accompanied by faith, v. 11 would not preserve a record of murmuring against Moses. Some commentators have suggested that the more pious among the Israelites cried to God (v. 10), whereas the irreligious murmured against Moses (v. 11).
11. Die in the wilderness. Men have ever found satisfaction in blaming someone else for the difficulties they encounter. In this case it was Moses who became the target of their indignation. They argued that he, as leader, should have known better than to bring them into so perilous a situation. And the pillar of cloud—had it not led them into this trap, from which there appeared no escape? Cynically they asked whether Egypt, a land of tombs if there ever was one, could not provide graves for them.
12. We did tell thee in Egypt. The people presented Moses with an exaggerated statement of the facts. It had only been when oppression increased, following Moses’ first interview with Pharaoh, that they complained of what Moses had done (ch. 5:21), whereas at first they gladly accepted his proposals (ch. 4:31). In leaving Egypt they had complied willingly with his directions.
It had been better. It is a common tendency to prefer death to slavery, where these are the only alternatives. It is not strange that a people fully accustomed to servitude and lacking a tradition of independence did not rise to the heroic heights that have been attained by freemen.
13. Fear ye not. Although the alarm of the Hebrews is understandable, the noble courage and confidence of Moses is surprising. A truly remarkable transformation had come over him since the time he timidly remonstrated with the Lord (chs. 4:1, 10, 13; 5:22, 23). Though he may have but vaguely understood that God would “be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host” (v. 4), he now remained calm and confident that all would be well. His own quiet confidence is reflected in his admonition to the people to wait patiently for the Lord to deliver them. There was obviously little else they could do. Moses knew not how God might accomplish His will, but his own experience in working with God in the land of Egypt made it certain He was fully able to rescue His people, however unlikely such a prospect might appear. Moses himself was distressed that his people manifested so little faith (PP 284).
The Egyptians. That is, Pharaoh’s great host. The word order in the original favors the marginal rendering, which, with but one slight change, is from the LXX. The latter reads, “For as ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more for ever.” Phrased thus, the statement means that they would see their enemies only as lifeless forms on the shores of the Red Sea (v. 30).
15. Wherefore criest thou? These words of the Lord imply that Moses had appealed to God for help, perhaps laying the complaints of the people before Him. They do not imply divine reproof, but constitute an admonition to resolute action.
16. Lift thou up thy rod. The Israelites were not to remain completely inactive while the Lord brought about their deliverance. They were to move forward, and as they did so, to witness the mighty power of God. He could have divided the Red Sea without the assistance of Moses, if the lifting up of the rod may be called assistance. God again chose to work through Moses in order that the people might come to trust more fully in their appointed leader. God ever operates in accordance with the principle of utilizing consecrated human agencies to accomplish His work on earth, whenever and wherever possible.
17. I will harden. Here only is it stated that God hardened the hearts of the Egyptians, apparently in the same sense that He hardened the heart of Pharaoh (see on ch. 4:21). By folowing his bidding they had become partakers of his guilt (cf. Rev. 18:4). Without doubt the Egyptians eagerly anticipated the recovery of their lost treasure, and bloody revenge upon any who should resist capture (chs. 12:35; 15:9). Under the circumstances human nature would be quite sufficient to make them cold and heartless.
They shall follow them. Ordinary common sense, based on previous experience, would have made the Egyptians cautious about becoming involved in so dangerous an adventure as following the Hebrews through the sea. It was stupidity and blood-thirstiness which urged them forward into danger (see Rom. 1:21, 22). Rash action usually characterizes those who deliberately spurn the leading of God’s Spirit. Heedless of the judgments of God so recently experienced, infatuated with confidence in themselves, they defied to the last the God of Israel (see 2 Thess. 2:9-12; Rev. 17:14; 19:19; 20:7-9).
19. The angel of God. The Divine Presence manifested in the pillar of cloud is called “the Lord” in v. 24 and ch. 13:21, but here “the angel of God” (see PP 366). Similarly, the One appearing to Moses in the burning bush is termed both “God” and “the angel of the Lord” (ch. 3:2-6).
20. It came between. The Egyptians apparently reached the vicinity of the Israelites camp at the close of a long day’s march (PP 287). Like an impenetrable wall of fog rolling in from the sea, the cloudy pillar settled between the pursued and the pursuers, forcing the latter to halt. Convinced that the Hebrews could not escape, the Egyptians postponed the attack to the next day (vs. 23, 24; 4T 24; PP 287).
It was a cloud. The expressions “to them” and “to these,” while not in the Hebrew but supplied by the KJV translators, are apparently justified by the context (see also PP 287). The night drew on apace, intensifying the impenetrable wall of darkness provided by the cloud. Meanwhile, on the side facing the Israelites the pillar presented the appearance of a brilliant torch, lighting up the whole camp and making it as easy to prepare for the march as it would have been by day. Thus, the flocks could be gathered, the beasts of burden collected and laded, and the various tribes and families arranged in marching order (see PP 281). They awaited only the signal to start.
21. A strong east wind. The word translated “east wind” may apply to any wind coming from a general easterly direction, from southeast to northeast, since the Hebrews used special terms for the four quarters of the compass only. Even now the ebb tide in the Gulf of Suez is strengthened by a strong northeast wind. Before the construction of the Suez Canal, it is reported, part of the gulf which lies north of the city of Suez was sometimes laid completely dry during the ebb flow of the tide, by a strong northeast wind. As a result, one could ride across the gulf or ford it on foot. However, an ebb tide strengthened by an east wind cannot account for the drying up of the sea here described, because in such a case the water is all driven southward, not in two opposite directions as the Sacred Record indicates. Such a separation of the waters could be produced only by a miracle (see PP 287). The exact spot of the crossing is unknown.
22. The waters were a wall. The depth of the waters on either side of the “dry ground” is not known. For this reason it is not clear whether the waters took the position of a literal, perpendicular “wall,” or whether the term “wall” is used figuratively in reference to the fact that the Israelites were protected from attack “on their right hand, and on their left.” The words of inspiration may be construed either way (see v. 21; PP 287), perhaps with preference for the former suggestion (4T 24, 25).
23. The Egyptians pursued. When the last Israelite left the western shore of the Red Sea, the cloud followed and permitted the Egyptians to see that the Hebrews had escaped. The Egyptians advanced immediately to the seashore, and finding the channel still dry, hastily entered and pressed forward in hot pursuit. Only when the entire Egyptian host was in the midst of the sea did the pillar of cloud become for them a pillar of fire and reveal to them their precarious location (1T 265; 4T 25).
24. In the morning watch. The “morning watch” of the Hebrews lasted from about 3 a.m. until sunrise, which, at this time of the year, would occur about 5:45.
The Lord looked. In Ps. 77:17-19 a description of what happened at this point is given. A sudden cloudburst was accompanied by lightning and thunder. Pressing forward on the bed of the Red Sea, whose heaped-up waters they could now see on either side, the Egyptians must have been terrified (see also Josephus Antiquities ii. 16. 3).
25. Took off their chariot wheels. The word here translated “took off” may also be rendered “gave away,” meaning perhaps that the wheels sank into the sand up to the axles, to be extricated again only with difficulty and to sink in once more a few yards farther on. The RSV, following the LXX and other versions, speaks of God “clogging their chariot wheels.” The Egyptians were still able to drive their chariots, but “drave them heavily.” This would imply that although the wheels had not been lost, they were not functioning properly (see 4T 25).
The Lord fighteth. The miraculous darkness which had at first separated them from the Israelites (v. 20), the mysterious opening of a pathway through the Red Sea, the heavy thunderstorm, and finally the difficult going, brought the Egyptians to the belated realization that the God of the Hebrews was actively aiding His people and effectively obstructing their own advance. Convinced that it was no use to further persevere in a mission apparently doomed to failure, they began their retreat.
27. The sea returned. When Moses again stretched out his staff over the sea, the east wind ceased to blow and the waters returned (see v. 21). It seems that the return of the waters was as much the result of the blowing of the wind as the opening of a pathway had been (see ch. 15:10). A strong west wind, suddenly caused to blow instead of the east wind of v. 21, may have hastened the process. As the Egyptians fled they were met by surging billows that poured in from each side.
28. All the host of Pharaoh. That is, all that set out across the sea in pursuit of the Hebrews. Commentators have reasoned that there may have been sections of Pharaoh’s army which remained on the western shore and consequently were not destroyed. The expression “the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host” does not support the opinion of many commentators that only the chariotry had entered the sea, and the infantry had stayed behind. Ellen G. White seems to imply that the entire Egyptian host was annihilated (PP 287; 1T 265).
30. Israel saw the Egyptians. Josephus (Antiquities ii. 16. 6) says that after the crossing of the sea by the Israelites a west wind set in (see on v. 27). Such a wind, assisted by the current, would drive the bodies of the drowned Egyptians to the eastern shore. In this way, according to Josephus, Moses obtained weapons and armor for the Israelites.
31. The people feared the Lord. The guidance of Israel through the sea was designed by God to establish in the hearts of the people reverence and faith in Him. But faith in the Lord was inseparably connected with faith in Moses as His representative, and for this reason the miracle had been wrought through Moses. Still babes in the faith, the Israelites were in need of miracles and divine manifestations. Belief followed, and was founded upon, sight. Our Lord, however, pronounced a blessing upon those “that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). A faith that continues to lean upon sight is far from perfect. This was true of Israel. If we knew nothing of the consequent history of Israel, we would conclude that henceforth they must have continued their journey with rejoicing, trusting in God with all their hearts, and never again showing distrust, no matter how great the crisis. But on the contrary, we find them continually discontented with God and Moses, murmuring against them, and despising their counsel. While we look in amazement at the perfidy of the Israelites, we should not be hasty in condemning their dullness of heart. We are certainly by no means superior to them if we trust God no further than our natural sight can perceive His will and His ways.
1. Then sang Moses. Moses’ song at the Red Sea has ever provided the church of God a pattern for praise in all its conflicts with the powers of darkness (see PP 289). The majestic theme of this song echoes through all the songs of Israel, in praise to God for His glorious works on their behalf. Finally, the song of Moses the servant of God will be sung again, with the song of the Lamb, by heroes of faith standing upon the “sea of glass,” victorious over the beast and his image (Rev. 15:3).
Moses is not expressly designated as the author of this song, but its form and content point undeniably to him as such (see PP 288). The song is composed of three climactic stanzas, each of which begins with praise to the Lord and ends with a description of the overthrow of the Egyptian host (Ex. 15:2-5, 6-10, 11-18). The theme announced in v. 1 is treated in three different ways, in each of which, however, the omnipotence of God is dominant. With clear prophetic insight, the third stanza especially, points to the glory of Israel in its future homeland, and to the sanctuary as God’s dwelling place.
He hath triumphed gloriously. The words of v. 1 were repeated by a chorus of women, led by Miriam (see vs. 20, 21). It is not certain whether this was done after each stanza, that is, after vs. 5, 10, and 18, or only at the end of the song. The words translated “triumphed gloriously” mean, literally, “highly exalted” or “gloriously glorious,” as the LXX has rendered this common Hebrew verb. It is repeated to convey the thought of exaltation in the most emphatic way possible.
2. The Lord. Here the abbreviated form of God’s name, Yah, appears for the first time in the OT narrative. It is occasionally used in poetic language on account of the rhythm, and also as an ending for personal and even topographical names, as for example, Abijah, Ahaziah, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Mt. Moriah, etc. (see pp. 35, 173).
And I will prepare him an habitation. These words are the translation of a single Hebrew word. This illustrates the compactness of Hebrew poetry. The KJV rendering seems to have come originally from the Aramaic Targum of Onkelos, who paraphrased the single word of the text by the expression, “I will build him a sanctuary.” Though this may have been one of the meanings of the verb, most translators since the days of the LXX and the Vulgate, including most modern commentators, have preferred the basic meaning of the verb, “beauty.” Accordingly, they translate the expression, “I will glorify him,” or “I will praise him” (RSV).
5. As a stone. Having accorded God the glory for the miraculous deliverance of Israel and the defeat of the Egyptians, Moses describes their fate in language highly poetic yet so plain it requires no explanation. It is possible that at this point Miriam’s chorus replied, with the words recorded in v. 21.
6. Thy right hand. With this verse a new stanza begins. For the most part it expands and explains the preceding one, presenting more details and drawing a sharp contrast between the pride and arrogance of the Egyptians and their miserable fall. All this was accomplished by the “right hand” of the Lord.
8. The blast of thy nostrils. A highly poetic description of the east wind, which had in part been responsible for the dividing of the waters. Waxing bolder in his imagery, Moses represents the floods as “standing in a heap” on either side, and the depths as “congealed.”
Congealed. Literally, “contracted,” “drawn together,” or “curdled.” Here used poetically, this word should not be construed as meaning that the waters actually froze (see PP 287).
9. The enemy said. By short clauses, following one another without connecting particles, the confidence of the Egyptians as they pursued the Israelites, breathing vengeance, is graphically depicted. The broken speech imitates the exclamations of the king’s soldiers, who were at once eager and out of breath. This description is an unusual departure from the usual stately order of Hebrew poetry.
10. Thou didst blow. This statement presents another fact not mentioned in the direct narrative of the destruction of the Egyptians, though it is in complete harmony with it. As a strong east wind had separated the waters and held them back for the Israelites, now a wind from the west or northwest brought the waters back upon the Egyptians. In obedience to its Creator, wind effectively served to rescue one people and to destroy another.
Sank as lead. The first stanza ended (v. 5) by comparing the drowning Egyptians with sinking zones. The second stanza ends with a similar expression, comparing the Egyptians to lead. The waters into which they sank are called “mighty” because of the mighty proof of the Creator’s glory provided by the waves rushing majestically back to fill their usual space. Here Miriam’s chorus (v. 21) probably interposed again.
11. Who is like unto thee? Once more Moses takes up his song of praise and victory. The third strophe assures God’s people that He will finish the work of salvation, already begun, will fill their enemies with terror, and will bring them to His holy dwelling place and plant them on the mountain of His inheritance. What the Lord has done thus far is regarded as a pledge of what the future yet has in store for those who follow where He leads.
14. The people shall hear. The Hebrew word translated “people” is in the plural and includes the tribes, or nations, of Philistia, Edom, and Moab, and the other inhabitants of Canaan (v. 15). Moses speaks now in the role of a prophet (see Deut. 18:15), as he looks forward to the effects of their own miraculous deliverance from the armies of Egypt. The peoples of Palestine would not only hear of this event but be terrified by gloomy forebodings of what lay in store for them, and thus not have the courage to offer effective opposition to Israel.
Palestina. This is the Greek form of a Hebrew word more accurately translated “Philistia.” It does not designate the whole country now known by the name of Palestine, but only a strip of territory extending along the southwestern coast of Canaan, from south of Gaza to Joppa. Some 50 mi. in extent, this strip of coastland was occupied by the Philistine confederacy, which became such a thorn in the side of Israel in later times.
15. The dukes of Edom. By the time Israel approached the borders of Edom, its dukes had given place to kings (Num. 20:14; cf. Gen. 36:15). Although the refusal of the Edomites to allow Israel passage through their land gives the impression that they felt powerful and unafraid, the fact that they rejected the peaceable request of Moses shows clearly a sense of insecurity and alarm which they sought to hide (see Judges 11:17).
The mighty men of Moab. The alarm of the Moabites was indicated by Balak’s efforts to induce Balaam to curse the Israelites (Num. 22 to 24).
All the inhabitants of Canaan. This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled when “all the kings of the Canaanites … heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, … their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more” (Joshua 5:1).
16. Till thy people pass over. Not the passing through the Red Sea, for that had already taken place, but the crossing of the desert and the borders of Canaan.
17. In the mountain. “The mountain of thine inheritance” was probably not the hill country of Canaan (Deut. 3:25), as some commentators have maintained, but rather the mountain the Lord had selected for a sanctuary (Ps. 78:54) and chosen as His own dwelling place. The planting of Israel upon this mountain does not signify their entrance into the Promised land, but the planting of the people of God in the house of the Lord (Ps. 92:13), in the future sanctuary. There the Lord would enter into more perfect fellowship with His people, and there they would show themselves to be His special possession by serving Him and offering up their sacrifices.
18. The Lord shall reign for ever and ever. Similar declarations are found elsewhere in Scripture (see Ps. 10:16; 29:10; 146:10; Rev. 11:15; etc.). Moses thus expresses the firm conviction of the man of God that God’s dominion is everlasting, not alone in the universe but in this world as well, not only under the law but also under the gospel, not only in time but throughout eternity. With this inspired exclamation the song of Moses closes, though in the next verse he gives an explanation of why God’s reign will last forever.
Like the two preceding stanzas, which ended with a statement concerning the destruction of the Egyptians (see vs. 5, 10), the third is brought to a close in a similar way. Instead of directing attention to the defeated Egyptians, however, Moses turns to their own triumphant Deliverer. The song, therefore, does not close with a gloomy picture of the destruction of God’s enemies, but on a note of victory and praise. This same theme will characterize the song of Moses and the Lamb, which the redeemed will sing upon the sea of glass (Rev. 15:2-4).
20. Miriam the prophetess. Miriam is the first woman whom the Bible honors with this title. Others followed from time to time throughout the history of God’s people (see Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Isa. 8:3; Luke 2:36). Miriam is not called a prophetess here primarily because the words she sang were inspired, but rather in recognition of her role in the Exodus, second only to the part taken by Moses and Aaron (see PP 382). She specifically claimed to possess the prophetic gift (Num. 12:2), inasmuch as God had spoken through her. The prophet Micah states that the Lord delivered Israel out of Egypt by Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Micah 6:4). Her task may have been to communicate to the people messages by which the hope of deliverance was kept alive during the dark years of oppression. She may have taught, admonished, and reproved the people. Here, at the Red Sea, however, she appears as an inspired and talented singer and musician. She must have been more than 90 years of age at the time (see Ex. 2:4; 7:7).
The sister of Aaron. Though Miriam was, of course, Moses’ sister as well, and had been instrumental in protecting him during infancy, she is here called the sister of Aaron. This perhaps indicates a subordinate position in relation to that held by Moses, but comparable to that of Aaron, who was himself subordinate to Moses (see ch. 4:16).
Took a timbrel. The instrument played by Miriam and her women accompanists was either a tambourine or a hand drum. Modern scholars specializing in the history of ancient musical instruments favor the latter translation. The same word for timbrel, toph, is used in modern Hebrew and Arabic to designate a hand drum. Ancient Egyptian pictures of this instrument show it made of a wooden hoop and two skins, but without jingles or sticks. It is beaten by the hand of the player. In the Bible this instrument is usually played by women (Judges 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6; Ps. 68:25), as it was in Egypt, but sometimes also by men (1 Sam. 10:5). It often accompanied singing and dancing, probably to accentuate the beat, and was considered a joyful instrument. In the OT it is usually associated with merrymaking and praise.
All the women. The separation of men and women into distinct bands was an Egyptian custom, as likewise was the performance of dances by groups of men and women, who accompanied their steps with music. This custom seems to have been taken over by the Hebrews during their long sojourn in Egypt. In later times we find Hebrew women taking part in the victory celebrations, when they met the returning armies with music and song (see Judges 11:34; 21:21; 1 Sam. 18:6, 7; 29:5).
With dances. The use of dances in religious ceremonies, so contrary to Western ideas of decorum, has ever been acceptable to the Oriental mind and sentiment. Various examples of religious dancing are found in the OT narrative. David danced before the ark when bringing it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:16), Jephthah’s daughter met her victorious father with dancing (Judges 11:34), and the virgins of Shiloh celebrated a feast in this way (Judges 21:21). Dancing is also mentioned with approval by the psalmist (Ps. 149:3; 150:4). The dancing of Bible times was an outward expression of holy joy, entered into in the same spirit as songs of praise or prayers of thanksgiving. It was distinctly an act of worship, and God accepted it as such (cf. John 6:37). Modern social dancing bears no resemblance whatever to the religious dancing of Bible times, for in it there was no mingling of men and women, and the only objective of the participants was the expression of love, devotion, and thanksgiving to God. Ancient dancing was an integral part of worship ritual.
21. Miriam answered them. Miriam, with her chorus of women, sang in response to the male chorus, probably at the termination of each stanza of the song (after vs. 5, 10, 18). The words of Miriam’s refrain, “Sing ye to the Lord,” etc., were also the opening words of Moses’ song of victory (v. 1).
22. The wilderness of Shur. This is the desert region reaching from the eastern border of Egypt to the southern border of Palestine, and touching in the south the mountains of the Sinai Peninsula. It is mentioned several times in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 16:7; 20:1; 25:18), and in the records of Saul’s and David’s victories over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:7; 27:8). It was through the southern part of this desert that Israel marched, in a southeasterly direction along the shores of the Red Sea. In Num. 33:8 this region is called the “wilderness of Etham.” If the interpretation given in the comment on Ex. 13:20 is correct, that Etham is an Egyptian word for a border fortress, it is easy to understand why the desert of Shur should also be called the desert of Etham.
Found no water. The Israelites, no doubt, carried a supply of drinking water in leather pouches, as Oriental peoples from ancient times have done. Knowing they were to enter the desert, the Israelites would not fail to take water with them, but a march of three days without finding more to replenish their exhausted supply would bring suffering to both man and beast. It was therefore imperative that they find wells or springs at certain intervals. Of all domestic animals used in the Near East the donkey was the most widely employed beast of burden for desert travel. The camel was found only occasionally prior to the 12th century b.c. Donkeys are able to travel for four days without water, but cattle, which the Israelites possessed in great numbers, could not possibly live without more frequent watering. For this reason a march of three days without finding water was about the limit the cattle could endure and not perish.
23. Marah. The first oasis south of Suez is the ‘Ain Hawârah. It lies on the ancient road to the Sinai copper mines, a few miles inland from the gulf and about 47 mi. from the town of Suez. The water is bitter. If its identification with the Biblical Marah is correct, the sweetening of its waters by Moses was not of a permanent nature. Although most commentators have accepted this identification, it should be noted that there are several bitter springs in the vicinity, one of them even more bitter than ‘Ain Hawârah.
24. The people murmured. They had murmured once before, on the western shore to the Red Sea (ch. 14:11, 12), and were to murmur many more times before their wanderings were over (see Ex. 16:2; Num. 14:2; 16:41; etc.). “Murmuring” would prove to be their common mode of giving vent to bitterness of soul at the difficulties regularly encountered. Since Moses was responsible for their departure from Egypt, and was their leader, their murmurings were in the first place directed against him. The men who serve their nation best are often least appreciated during their lifetime, and monuments are usually erected in their honor only after they have died.
What shall we drink? Though men will often swallow unpalatable water when their thirst is great, there is a limit beyond which nature cannot go. Even beasts refuse to drink the water of certain bitter wells in the Arabian Desert.
25. The Lord shewed him a tree. The name of this tree is not revealed. Several trees or plants belonging to different parts of the world are said to possess the quality of rendering bitter water sweet, but none of these have been found on the Sinai Peninsula. In fact, the Bedouins of the neighborhood, who consider the water of the ‘Ain Hawârah and other similar springs in the vicinity unpalatable, know of no means by which this water can be made drinkable. Hence there are but two possible explanations for this text. Moses was either directed to take a tree which had the natural quality of changing bitter water into sweet, which tree no longer grows in that area, or the transformation of the water was a direct act of God and the tree was only of symbolic significance.
An ordinance. After healing the water and satisfying the physical thirst of His people, God gave them an ordinance that was connected with the miracle by a promise (see v. 26).
There he proved them. From the time of their departure from Egypt to their entry into Canaan, God “proved” His people on many occasions—first at the Red Sea, now at Marah, later at Meribah (ch. 17:1-7), Sinai (ch. 20:20), Taberah (Num. 11:1-3), Kibroth-hattaavah (Num. 11:34), Kadesh (Num. 13:26-33), and elsewhere. These “proofs” were part of God’s attempts to train them, under comparatively easy circumstances, for the experiences they would face in Canaan.
26. If thou wilt diligently hearken. Here is recorded a wonderful promise. If God’s people would henceforth render strict obedience to all His commandments, then He would “heal” them as He had healed the water, and would keep them free from both physical and moral evil. Their physical well-being was therefore made dependent upon obedience. This great principle was true not only in the time of the Hebrews but through all ages. The physical well-being of the human race is still to a large extent dependent upon their regard for divine law. Those who disregard the laws that govern healthful living have but themselves to blame for the consequences. On the other hand, those who live according to divinely imparted instructions on health will experience a marked freedom from diseases. God is interested not only in man’s spiritual state but also in his physical state (see 3 John 2).
These Diseases. Some of these diseases are enumerated in Deut. 28:27, and reference to them is also made in Deut. 7:15. It is known that certain diseases have always been prevalent among the Egyptians with extreme severity, especially skin and eye diseases. During their long sojourn in Egypt the Hebrews were well acquainted with the diseases of Egypt.
The Lord that healeth thee. The Egyptian physicians were famous all over the ancient Near East, but extant texts show that they did not consider the power of healing to be their own, but their gods’. In their medical handbooks, some of which are now 4,000 years old, diseases are divided into three classes: (1) those that can be treated; (2) those that can be arrested; (3) those that cannot be cured. Though medical science has advanced tremendously since the days of Moses, the above classification still stands. The surgeon can make an incision, remove an organ, and sew up the wound, but he cannot heal it. The physician can administer certain drugs, which he knows to have certain effects on certain ailments, but there his skill ends. The actual healing process is performed by a power over which human science has no control. It is still true in the 20th century as it was in the time of Moses that God alone imparts healing. He is the Master Physician.
27. Elim. The next place of encampment has since ancient times been identified with the Wadi Gharandel, about 7 mi. south of ‘Ain Hawârah. This spot, with its plentiful supply of comparatively good water and its luxuriant groves of palms, tamarisks, acacias, and its tall grass, is even now one of the principal halting places between Suez and Sinai. The archeologist, Flinders Petrie, found a good supply of water in the valley both times he crossed it, first in December of 1904 and again in March of the following year, even though the winter had been very dry and rain had not fallen for several weeks (Researches in Sinai [1906], p. 12).
They encamped there. Since the Wadi Gharandel is joined by two comparatively more fertile valleys, the Wadi Useyt and the Wadi Tayibeh, it is possible that the Israelites used this opportunity for pasturing their cattle and resting them for several days before continuing on their journey. Mention is not made here of an encampment at Marah (see vs. 23-26), though it is so listed in Num. 33:8. The people probably halted at Marah no longer than necessary. Moses, who had traversed these regions before and knew every well and stream, probably assured the Israelites that they would find a fertile valley only a few miles beyond Marah.
1. They took their journey. From Elim, perhaps in the Wadi Gharandel, where the Israelites probably spent several days, or possibly even weeks, the journey was resumed. According to Num. 33:10, where a more complete itinerary is presented than in Exodus, the next halting place was the Red Sea. This seems to have been in the wide plain el-Markha, which borders on the Red Sea and lies on the regular route to the Egyptian copper mines at Wadi Magâra.
The wilderness of Sin. Various opinions exist in regard to the location of the Sin desert. Some commentators have suggested that the name was given to this region because of multitudes of thorny bushes, whose name in Heb., seneh, is similar. Others think that this name, as well as that of Sinai itself, was derived from the name of the moon-god, Sin, who was worshiped on the Sinai Peninsula. The desert of Sin has been variously identified with (1) the dry, barren coastal plain of el-Qâa, north of the present port city of Tôr, (2) the copper mine valley Wadi Magâra, (3) the plain Debbet er-Ramleh, north of Jebel Musa in the heart of the Sinai Peninsula, and (4) the oasis Feiran. The two last-named localities deserve less consideration than the first two since they are rather far south.
The second month. Israel had been on their way exactly one month (see ch. 12:2, 6, 11, 12; Num. 33:3). Since only seven camping places (Num. 33:5-11) and one journey of three days through a wilderness (Ex. 15:22) are mentioned, it is evident that there must have been prolonged stays at various places, or many campsites that are not mentioned, or both.
3. The flesh pots. Accustomed in Egypt to a diet of meat, bread, fish, and vegetables (Num. 11:5), which had come to them even as slaves, they now rose up against Moses and Aaron.
4. I will rain bread. The patience and kindness of God toward His chosen people in these instances of murmuring is remarkable. Recognizing that their minds were still as servile and their faith as undeveloped as when they were in Egypt, God did not show Himself offended at their murmuring but sent help each time they were in trouble. In so doing it was His purpose to train them to trust their divinely appointed leaders and to have faith in Him.
The phenomenon described here and elsewhere in the Bible (Deut. 8:3; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:23-25; 105:40; John 6:31) can be satisfactorily accounted for only as a miracle. The explanation of certain modern Bible expositors that the “manna” (Ex. 16:15) was the secretion of various plant lice is preposterous. Examining this so-called “manna” in 1927, F. S. Bodenheimer, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, found that various plant lice, cicadas, and scale insects feed on the tamarisk trees of the Sinai wilderness and excrete their excess carbohydrates in the form of honeydew drops. The latter evaporate into particles resembling hoar frost. This is supposed to be the “manna” that Josephus (Antiquities iii. 1. 6) said was still found on Sinai in his time. Acceptance of the narrative of Ex. 16 precludes the possibility that the “manna” of the tamarisk can have been the miraculous food on which the Israelites lived for 40 years. The heavenly manna was provided throughout the year, but ceased as soon as they entered the Promised Land (Joshua 5:12). The tamarisk “manna” is found on Sinai only during the months of June and July. The quantity of this plant “manna” is extremely small and could not possibly serve to feed many people, whereas God fed a whole nation with His manna for almost 40 years. Furthermore, the Biblical manna could not be preserved even to the next day, except on Sabbath (Ex. 16:19, 20), but could be baked (v. 23). In contrast, tamarisk “manna” can be kept for several days, but cannot be used for baking purposes, though it can be cooked. These points of difference show that acceptance of the modern interpretation, which explains the manna as a natural product of Sinai, means rejection of the Biblical record. This and other modern explanations, all of which are made with the purpose of escaping anything of a miraculous nature, do not deserve further consideration.
That I may prove them. That the rain of manna was designed by God as a means of education is apparent from these words. The miraculous provision of food was to train the people to respect and obey His holy law.
5. On the sixth day. Here Moses indicates briefly the nature of the test implied in v. 5. Mention of “the sixth day” immediately reminds one of the sixth day of creation week (Gen. 1:31), the only previous occurrence of this expression, and thus of the fact that in six days God completed His work of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). Considered together with Gen. 2:1-3 and Ex. 20:8-11, this reference clearly points to the fact that the Hebrews knew of the weekly cycle prior to the giving of the law at Sinai (cf. Gen. 29:28). The seventh day, on which no manna fell, was “the holy sabbath unto the Lord” (Ex. 16:22-30), and on it the people were to “rest” (v. 30). In Hebrew, the word Sabbath means “rest.” In conjunction with v. 23, v. 5 indicates that only the seventh day had a name, “the holy sabbath,” whereas the other six days were designated by ordinals, as the first, second, third day, etc.
Twice as much. Twice as much manna was to fall on the sixth day, and they were to gather twice as much (PP 296). This weekly thought and activity required in preparation for the Sabbath was to be to Israel a lesson on the importance of the Sabbath day.
6. Then ye shall know. The first evidence the Israelites would have that God had heard and considered their complaints, would be the descent of the quails in the evening of the day on which Moses and Aaron addressed them (see vs. 12, 13).
7. The glory of the Lord. These words do not apply to the manifestation of divine glory that immediately followed Moses and Aaron’s address (see v. 10), but to the miraculous rain of manna in the morning, an act in which God’s great power and glory would be evident.
What are we? The murmuring of the people directed at Moses and Aaron as their leaders was in reality against the Lord. Moses and Aaron had but carried out His instructions. God would therefore manifest His glory to the people, as evidence that He had heard their murmuring. This manifestation of divine power is more fully explained in v. 8.
8. In the evening flesh. Much of this verse is a repetition of statements previously made. However, there is an important addition, in direct answer to the murmurings of the people. In their complaint they had mentioned the “flesh pots” and the “bread” of Egypt, for which they longed (v. 3). Flesh and bread they would now have “to the full.” God would demonstrate that He could supply in the desert what Egypt possessed, and more.
9. Come near before the Lord. Before the promised food should be given, Moses required the people to present themselves before the Lord, in recognition that He was the one against whom they had rebelled. Inasmuch as the conduct of Moses and Aaron had been called in question, it was necessary for God to show the people that He approved the action of His faithful servants and would honor their promise.
12. At even. Literally “between the two evenings” (see on ch. 12:6).
Ye shall eat flesh. It was only on rare occasions that the Lord provided flesh for the Israelites. But two are recorded, the one here in the Wilderness of Sin and another at Kibroth-hattaavah in the Wilderness of Paran (Num. 11:31-34). Israel was not in actual need of flesh food, since the “corn of heaven” (Ps. 78:24) was adequate to supply all their needs.
13. Quails. Some commentators have explained the word translated “quails” as meaning either flying fish or locusts, but Ps. 78:27 makes it clear that “feathered fowls” are meant. It is now generally agreed that the word “quail” is correct. This quail is a game bird about 10 in. in length, the Coturnix communis, and belongs to the same order as pheasants, partridges, and grouse. It resembles the American quail. Ornithologists have reported great migrations of quail from Romania, Hungary, and southern Russia, across the eastern Mediterranean to North Africa. From Sinai thousands of quail a day have been exported to the markets of Europe. Many ancient Egyptian pictures show the people hunting quail with hand nets thrown down over bushes where quail are resting.
14. A small round thing. When the dew evaporated before the rising sun, there remained a delicate small substance that could easily be gathered in bags. It is compared here to “hoar frost” and elsewhere (Num. 11:7) to “coriander seed.”
15. It is manna. The two Hebrew words man hu’, thus translated, were long a puzzle to scholars. The word man could hardly be translated as the name of the heavenly bread, which appears first in v. 31. Some therefore translated the expression, “It is a gift,” but this again is far from convincing. The most probable interpretation is that of the LXX, “What is this?” a rendering supported by the words immediately following, “for they wist not what it was.” But since the Hebrew for “what” is mah and not man, it was suggested that Aramaic usage had influenced the text; yet the Aramaic man does not mean “what” but “who.” F. M. Th. Böhl, however, has shown that the form man was an old Semitic particle meaning “what.” It appears as manna, in the Palestinian Amarna Letters, documents written in the 14th century b.c. We may therefore conclude that this short phrase is properly translated, “What is this?” (LXX), or “What is it?” (RSV). This exclamation reveals the surprise of the Hebrews when they discovered the unfamiliar substance.
The final solution of this problem, noted above, is one of the many evidences that the Pentateuch was not written many centuries after the Exodus, as so many modern scholars believe. Words and expressions like this, found only in documents from the middle of the second millennium b.c., would not have been used by a writer in the first millennium, for he would have been unaware of their existence at the time of the Exodus. The story of the Exodus was written by a contemporary of that great event, one who was acquainted with the phraseology of his own time, and who knew how to use it.
They wist not what it was. This explanatory phrase shows that the preceding exclamation of the Hebrews was one of astonishment and inquiry. They could not have said, “It is manna,” when they did not know what it was, and Moses had to tell them that it was bread from heaven. If they had realized at once that it was the food sent them by God, there would have been no need for Moses to tell them so.
16. An omer for every man. The omer was the 10th part of an ephah (v. 36), that is, 2 dry qt. (2.2 l.). It is thought that the cup often depicted on Hebrew coins of the first Christian century represents the omer of barley from the new crop, presented at the Temple as an offering from the first fruits of the field.
18. When they did mete it. Obeying Moses’ directions, the Israelites gathered the new food. Upon measuring it they found that, whatever the quantity actually gathered by anyone, it was exactly as many omers as there were persons in the family. God thus not only provided food in a miraculous manner but took care that everyone enjoyed an ample share.
19. Let no man leave of it. God had provided the Israelites with food for which they had not labored, but He did not want them to become lazy. They must gather every day in order to have anything to eat. Furthermore, they must rise early, since the manna melted “when the sun waxed hot” (v. 21). Although there were no fields to plow or harvests to bring in, the fact that they must arise early to gather their food shows that God planned every detail of this phenomenon for the people’s benefit and training. Poverty and want are the reward of those who sleep late (see Prov. 6:9-11).
20. It bred worms. This result of storing up the manna was also probably supernatural. It served as a punishment to the disobedient, and effectively checked the practice of carelessly ignoring God’s instructions.
22. Twice as much. On the sixth day another miracle occurred. It had already been revealed to Moses that the people were to gather twice as much on Friday as on other days (v. 5), and this information Moses had passed on to the people, for “they gathered twice as much.” But nothing had as yet been revealed concerning its miraculous preservation, nor as to the fact that none would fall on the Sabbath. By gathering a double amount Friday morning the people had complied with instructions thus far given. But experience during the week had shown that any left over would spoil before morning (v. 20). This problem the tribal leaders now brought before Moses. Apparently, God delayed specific instructions concerning the Sabbath until this very time, since they had not been necessary earlier in the week.
23. To morrow. Moses realized that God had bestowed the manna in such a way that the Sabbath was to be sanctified thereby (v. 4). The apparent ignorance of the people concerning the Sabbath, together with Moses’ instructions regarding it and the fact that some attempted to find a fresh supply of manna on Sabbath in spite of instructions that none would fall, shows that the Israelites had largely lost sight of God’s holy day during their sojourn in Egypt. The rigorous requirements of the taskmasters had primarily been responsible for this laxity in Sabbath observance (PP 258).
Seethe that ye will seethe. In modern English, “Boil what you will boil” (RSV). All preparation of the food was to be completed before the Sabbath began. Later, Moses instructed the people not even to kindle a fire on the Sabbath day (ch. 35:3), and upon at least one occasions a man was stoned to death for violating this regulation (Num. 15:32-36). The principle involved was that no labor of any kind should be performed on the Sabbath which could as well be done at some other time. In the warm desert climate it was not essential to health to eat warm food on the Sabbath day. Had it been necessary to do so God would have permitted it, in harmony with the principle that the Sabbath was designed for the benefit of man (Mark 2:27, 28), and that “it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days” (Matt. 12:12). Since baking and boiling could be dispensed with, without injury to health, God prohibited them in order that the people might learn to put a “difference between the holy and profane” (Eze. 22:26). In our day, whatever can be done on Friday in preparation for the Sabbath should be done then (6T 355), yet at the same time Sabbath meals should be both healthful and appetizing (6T 359).
24. They laid it up. Most of the people obeyed, and experienced a new miracle when that portion laid aside for the Sabbath neither “bred worms” nor “stank.” For 40 years this weekly procedure taught the people to make Friday a day of preparation for the Sabbath, and to make the Sabbath itself truly a day of rest.
25. To day is a sabbath. Or, “Today is the Lord’s sabbath.” Although the definite article “the” does not appear in the Hebrew text, the grammatical construction permits such a translation. The same Hebrew word form, “a sabbath,” appears also in the fourth commandment, where the KJV renders it, appropriately, “the sabbath” (Ex. 20:10). In both instances, however, a strict translation would require that it be rendered “a sabbath.” At the same time “the sabbath” would be entirely permissible.
There is nothing either in this text or in its context to indicate that the Sabbath was now given to the Israelites for the first time, as some have supposed. In fact, it is implied that they already knew of the Sabbath, but had grown careless in its observance (ch. 16:4). The Sabbath command was therefore renewed and its observance as a holy day reinforced (see on vs. 27, 28).
The Hebrew expression shabbath, “rest,” here correctly rendered “a sabbath,” is translated in vs. 23 and 26 and in ch. 20:10 as “the sabbath.” However, in v. 29 and ch. 20:8 the Hebrew text reads hashshabbath, which is correctly translated “the sabbath.” The expression “a sabbath”—“a rest”—describes how the seventh day is distinguished from the preceding six as regards labor. “The sabbath”—“the rest”—describes the distinctive character of the seventh-day rest; namely, a rest memorializing the rest of God on the seventh day of creation week, and thus a holy rest day.
26. Six days. These words are similar to those of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue. Here, mention is made not only of the Sabbath as a day of holy rest but also of the days of work preceding it. In God’s plan for man these six working days are of no less significance than is the Sabbath. They have been given to man for his own use. But the seventh day of the week is holy (v. 23). It should be spent in accordance with divinely given regulations as specified in the fourth commandment.
The sabbath. Here the Hebrew text uses the definite article (see on vs. 25, 28). “The sabbath” is a sacred institution ordained at the close of creation week. Even then it was “the” Sabbath (ch. 20:11).
27. Some of the people. As usual, there were some who either did not believe what Moses had said and wanted to see for themselves whether manna had fallen, or intentionally violated the commandment out of a stubborn desire to have their own way.
28. How long refuse ye? In speaking to Moses personally, God addresses the nation as a whole and its disobedient individuals in particular. This is evident from the use in the Hebrew of the plural form of the verb “refuse.” There had already been one act of disobedience the day the manna was first given (v. 20), but now one of a more serious nature occurred. God, addressing them as Judge, asks them to face the question of when He might expect sinful conduct such as this to end, and when they would learn that they could gain nothing by disobedience. The later history of Israel shows clearly how “long” it would take them to learn this important lesson. God’s question, “How long,” etc., implies that they had for a considerable time been doing this very thing—breaking the Sabbath, in full knowledge of the fact that they were doing what was wrong (see on vs. 25, 27).
29. See. The patience of God toward His stubborn people is amazing, and teaches an important lesson to us who tend to be impatient. Instead of always punishing Israel for their repeated murmurings and acts of disobedience, God condescends to reason with them, explaining the purpose of His requirements. The Sabbath was a holy day of rest, with which they were not to tamper; hence, the double portion of food the day before.
Abide ye every man. The Israelites were directed to remain in camp on the Sabbath, and not to go out for manna or for any other purpose. Their time on that day was to be spent in rest at home and in meditation upon sacred themes. God had already instructed Israel to assemble for worship on days designated as “holy” (ch. 12:16), a practice that was consistently applied to other “holy” days (see Lev. 23:2-4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35-37). In postexilic times the Jews set up and enforced strict regulations concerning the leaving of cities or villages on the Sabbath. No one was permitted to travel farther than 2,000 cubits, or approximately two thirds of a mile. In the NT this distance is commonly referred to as “a sabbath day’s journey” (Acts 1:12). Endless, man-made Sabbath regulations have been strictly followed by orthodox Jews even since Bible times, with the result that the Sabbath, designed by God to be a delight (Isa. 58:13), became a burden.
30. The people rested. Finding no manna Sabbath morning, and rebuked for going out to find it, the people began to rest on the Sabbath day.
31. The house of Israel. Some of the oldest versions, such as the LXX, the Syriac, and the Arabic translation, read “children” instead of “house.” It is possible that the reading “children of Israel” is closer to the original than “house of Israel.”
Manna. No explanation of this name yet proposed has met with general acceptance. Some have suggested that it may mean “gift,” but it is more probable that the word owes its origin to the original exclamation of astonishment, man hu’, “What is it?” (see on v. 15).
Like coriander seed. An herb, Coriandrum sativum, which grows wild in the Near East. Its aromatic fruit, called “coriander seed,” is used for seasoning and medicinal purposes. The color of the seed is whitish or yellow-gray. In Num. 11:7 it is compared with the bdellium (see on Gen. 2:12).
Wafers. The Hebrew word thus translated appears only here in the Bible, and is of uncertain meaning. The LXX renders it by the word egkris, according to Greek literary sources, designates a cake made of flour, oil, and honey. The Israelites described the manna as tasting like cakes with honey (Ex. 16:31) and as if baked with fresh oil (Num. 11:8).
33. Take a pot. This command was given after the erection of the tabernacle (v. 34), but is related here in order to bring all subject matter bearing on the manna together in one place. The word translated “pot” is from an Egyptian word meaning a rather large jar. Here, however, it seems to have been used to designate a metal vessel, made of gold to match the ark (see Heb. 9:4).
34. The Testimony. Not the ark of the covenant, to which this name is never given, but the two tables of stone engraved by the finger of God (chs. 25:16-21; 40:20; etc.). The pot of manna was laid up inside the ark (Heb. 9:4) in front of the two tables of stone.
35. Forty years. This statement was either written by Moses shortly before his death or added by an inspired scribe, probably Joshua. In favor of Moses’ authorship is the expression “until they came to a land inhabited,” to which is added, “until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.” This need not refer to the crossing of the Jordan, but to the lands east of the Jordan. The author writes exactly as Moses might be expected to have written toward the close of his life. A later writer would have been more specific, and would probably have noted, as Joshua did in his book (Joshua 5:10-12), the exact time when the manna ceased.
Ephah. Equivalent to about 5 gal.
1. Pitched in Rephidim. Between the Wilderness of Sin, where the fall of the manna began, and Rephidim, lay two camp sites, Dophkah and Alush (Num. 33:12, 13). The location of these stations, as well as that of Rephidim, is unknown. Most Biblical scholars have sought Rephidim in the Wadi Feiran, which leads up to the traditional Mt. Sinai. Others have identified it with the Wadi Refâyid, primarily because of the similarity of its name to Rephidim. Wadi Refâyid lies but a few hours’ march from Mt. Sinai. This fact favors its identification with Rephidim, since in several texts Mt. Horeb is used almost synonymously with Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 17:6; 33:6; Ps. 106:19; etc.).
No water. Traveling in the late spring the people expected to find water in the valleys. This probably accounts for the fact that water was not taken in sufficient quantity. The dry river bed of the valley of Rephidim proved to be the cause of consternation more serious than any they had felt before.
2. Give us water. On several occasions the people had murmured; now they complained bitterly. Since Moses had already given them flesh and bread to eat, the people may have naturally expected him to provide them with water as well. But their complaint reflected doubt rather than faith.
Tempt the Lord. The children of Israel “tempted” God by trying His patience, and aroused His holy anger by their continued want of faith and gratitude. The entire history of their desert wandering is one of provocation. The long-suffering of God with such a people, who “tempted and provoked the most high God” (Ps. 78:56), is amazing. They repeatedly “provoked him to anger with their inventions” (Ps. 106:29), “murmured in their tents” (Ps. 106:25), “provoked him at the sea” (Ps. 106:7), and “tempted God in the desert” (Ps. 106:14).
3. To kill us. For a short time the words of Moses seem to have calmed the people, but when their thirst became unbearable they returned to Moses, hot with anger. Again accusing him of having plotted their death (see ch. 14:11), they manifested a grievous lack of faith.
4. What shall I do? Moses ever carried his difficulties to the Lord (see Ex. 15:25; 32:30; 33:8; Num. 11:2, 11; 12:13; 14:13-19; etc.). For his own part, Moses had learned implicit confidence in the One who had called him to be leader of His people, and whenever he reached the limit of human wisdom he found an ever ready Helper.
Ready to stone me. The situation must have been serious indeed, for Moses’ very life was in danger. The practice of stoning is first mentioned in ch. 8:26. Since no trace of death by stoning has been found in Egypt, this form of capital punishment seems to have originated here, so far as the Israelites were concerned, and was no doubt suggested by the abundance of available rocks. Stoning was later practiced among the Greeks, in the time of the Persian wars (Herodotus ix. 5), and by some other peoples. It was one of the easiest ways of killing a criminal without spilling his blood, and seemed especially suitable when the public was called upon to avenge a certain crime like blasphemy (Lev. 24:16) or idolatry (Deut. 13:10; 17:5-7). Here at Rephidim, however, the occasion was one of mutiny, a spontaneous uprising to get rid of a hated leader, whom they held responsible for their unbearable suffering. Thirst can, of course, prove to be torture of the worst sort.
5. Go on before the people. Taking some of the elders with him as witnesses, Moses was to leave the people in Rephidim and go up into the mountains in advance of the spot where the people were encamped. The performance of this miracle was to be witnessed only by the elders, in contrast with the second similar experience, when water was brought forth in the presence of all the people (Num. 20:8-11).
6. I will stand before thee. The Lord promised to come personally to the help of Moses. It was His gracious presence that caused water to flow out of the rock, though this was not to be till Moses should strike it with his staff, that the people might acknowledge him as God’s representative.
7. Massah, and Meribah. “Temptation,” and “murmuring.” The unbelief manifested here would by these names long continue to remind Israel of the lesson God designed to teach them upon this occasion (Deut. 6:16; Ps. 78:20; 95:8; 105:41). The location of this rock is not known, but in view of the fact that it was “in Horeb” (v. 6), it seems to have been close both to Rephidim and to the amount of the law.
8. Then came Amalek. The Amalekites were descendants of Esau’s grandson, after whom they were named (Gen. 36:12). Separating themselves from their brethren at an early date, they seem to have become a leading tribe in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula. Though a race kindred to Israel, they viewed with suspicion the occupation of their pastures by the Hebrews, and were bent upon their utter destruction (PP 300). Beginning with this first encounter at Rephidim, a long and bitter feud developed between the two nations. A year later the Israelites were defeated by the Amalekites, who joined forces with the Canaanites at Kadesh-barnea (Num. 14:45). During the period of the judges the Amalekites sought to subjugate Israel, but were defeated by the band of Gideon (Judges 6:33). Saul and David also repeatedly defeated (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:7; 27:8; 30:17, 18; 2 Sam. 8:12), and the last remnants of the nation were finally destroyed by the Simeonites during the reign of King Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:41-43).
Fought with Israel. This battle began with a treacherous attack upon those at the rear of the long Hebrew column, “even all that were feeble,” when they were “faint and weary” (Deut. 25:18). This infamous attack was regarded by God as a personal insult, and though final retribution was long delayed it was never forgotten, for in due time God commissioned Saul to destroy them (1 Sam. 15:2, 3). It was because of the murmuring of the Israelites that God permitted the Amalekites to attack them at Rephidim (PP 298).
9. Joshua. The successor of Moses and later leader of Israel here appears in the narrative for the first time. Joshua, whose name means “Jehovah is salvation” or “Jehovah helps,” was a prince of the tribe of Ephraim who entered the personal service of Moses either before or soon after the battle with the Amalekites (see Num. 13:8; Ex. 24:13). When chosen by Moses, his name was still Hoshea or Oshea, which means “salvation.” His more meaningful name, Jehoshua or Joshua, “Jehovah is salvation” or “Jehovah helps,” was given him by Moses upon a later occasion (Num. 13:8, 16). The name Jesus is from the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua (see Heb. 4:8).
Choose us out men. It was probably evening when Moses heard of the attack upon his rear ranks, and there was consequently little possibility of retrieving the loss until the following day (Ex. 17:9). But arrangements for meeting the enemy the next morning were made. This preparation consisted in the selection of men fit for battle, and probably also in strategy meetings with band leaders and last-minute instructions for battle on the morrow.
The rod of God in mine hand. While Moses sent his men into combat and did everything humanly possible to guarantee victory over the treacherous enemy, he demonstrated also his trust in God rather than in human strength (cf. Jer. 17:5). Although he knew that victory comes from the Lord, this trust did not prevent him from putting forth every effort to protect the women and children, the aged and weak. Divine power is thus ever to be combined with human effort.
10. Hur. Hur, who also held a prominent position (ch. 24:14), was a descendant of Judah through Caleb, the son of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18-20). His grandson, Bezaleel, was architect of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:2). According to one Jewish tradition he was the husband of Miriam, and according to another, her son.
11. Israel prevailed. The lifting up of the hands has generally been regarded by ancient Jewish scholars, by the church Fathers, by the Reformers, and by many modern commentators as the sign or attitude of prayer. Throughout Bible times the custom of lifting up one’s hands in prayer was observed by pious and earnest worshipers. A few commentators have regarded the posture of Moses, with his hands lifted up, as the attitude of a commander superintending and directing the battle, but this opinion must be rejected, since Moses did not function as commander in chief. He had transferred the command to Joshua (v. 9). He himself engaged in earnest prayer to God for help and victory (PP 299). The question has been raised as to why Moses did not continue to pray even when his hands were weary. Only those who have attempted to pray continuously for long periods of time know how difficult such a procedure is. Perhaps when Moses dropped his hands because of fatigue, he rested also from the mental concentration necessary to prayer. To impress upon Israel the importance of intercessory prayer, God permitted success and failure to alternate accordingly. At the same time God wished His people to learn that their success was to be found in cooperating with His chosen leaders.
12. Aaron and Hur. Teamwork prevailed. While Israel under Joshua’s command fought for its very existence down in the valley Moses’ two companions supported him. This support was not only physical but probably spiritual as well. They continued with him in intercession until final victory was gained, toward the close of the day.
In this experience lies a deep spiritual lesson for every Christian and for the church as a whole. From it we learn that prayer and supplication are essential to victories over our enemies. So long as the hands are outstretched and the soul exerts itself in prayer, our spiritual adversaries will be beaten back. When prayer is forgotten and one’s hold on God is loosened, spiritual foes will gain ground, with the result that eventually all connection with heaven may be severed. On the other hand the church is assured of victory over all the powers of evil so long as its leaders are men of prayer, and so long as its members cooperate with those leaders, supporting them with their prayers and exemplary lives.
14. Write. This is the first mention in the Sacred Record of writing. Until recently it was not known how this was done and what kind of script was employed. The fact that alphabetic writing existed in the time of Moses was discovered about the time of the first world war. Previously, it had been known only that alphabetic script was used by the various peoples of Palestine, particularly the Phoenicians, in the first millennium b.c., and that European alphabets had developed, through the intermediate stages of Greek and Latin, from that original Phoenician script. Higher critics scoffed at the idea that Moses could have written the Pentateuch in Hebrew during the second millennium b.c., convinced as they were that Hebrew writing was nonexistent at that time. Those who admitted that Moses might have written part of the Pentateuch, or certain experiences such as this one, thought that he must have employed either Egyptian hieroglyphic script or Babylonian cuneiform.
According to the evidence it seems probable that the first alphabetic form of writing was invented—if not in Phoenicia or southern Palestine—in the very region of Sinai where Moses received the command to write the story of Amalek’s defeat in a book. In 1916 Dr. Alan Gardiner published his first attempt to decipher inscriptions found some ten years earlier by Sir Flinders Petrie which the Egyptian copper mines of the Wadi Magâra on Sinai. Subsequent expeditions have increased the number of inscriptions from that place, and the combined labor of a number of outstanding linguists has succeeded in deciphering this previously unknown script. These inscriptions reveal the astonishing fact that they constitute the earliest attempts at composing a Semitic script, which consisted of about 25 characters.
The inventors of this alphabet were probably Canaanites who worked for the Egyptians in mines in Sinai. They may have had no written language of their own, but had become acquainted with the hieroglyphic system of writing used for centuries in Egypt. For example, the only way the Egyptians could express in writing the idea of a house was by drawing a hieroglyph, or picture, of a house. To some Canaanite at the mines came the brilliant idea of using certain Egyptian hieroglyphs to express abstract phonetic sounds instead of concrete objects. In the Canaanite language a house was a bayith. The first sound of bayith being b, they assigned the phonetic value of b to the Egyptian hieroglyph for “house.” The application of this principle made it possible for a small number of characters to express whatever they wished to say. This was an invention of far-reaching importance. Nor has it been greatly improved since then. We still use a modified form of the alphabetic script invented probably on the Sinai Peninsula before the Exodus. Our own letter b, for example, is a direct descendant of the first character used at Sinai for that sound.
The invention of alphabetic writing shortly before the Exodus was as much a providential gift of God as the invention of printing by movable type shortly before the Reformation. The Bible could never have become the “book of the people” if it had been necessary to write it in the complicated hieroglyphic or cuneiform systems which preceded the invention of alphabetic script. With this new script, with which Moses had probably become acquainted during his long sojourn in Sinai, it was easy to write the story of God’s dealings with His people and the various legal regulations found in the Pentateuch as well. It was also easy to learn to read such writing. By no mere accident the Hebrew Scriptures constitute the oldest and most complete historical record of the human race and of God’s attempts to rescue man from the kingdom of Satan.
In a book. The “book” in which Moses wrote the story of Amalek’s attack and defeat probably consisted of a papyrus scroll, the most common Egyptian writing material. This ancestor of paper was made from fibers of the stem of the papyrus plant, then found in swamps of the Nile Delta. Papyrus sheets were made by first placing a layer of soaked fibers one way, and on top of it another layer the other way. The layers were then glued together, pressed and dried, and smoothed by rubbing the sheets with a pumice stone. Finally, several sheets were fastened together to form a roll of an average height of 9 or 10 in. and a length of from 10 to 30 ft. Such a scroll would be long enough to contain any of the five books of the Pentateuch.
From the remark made in Num. 33:2 it is evident that Moses kept a diary of Israel’s journey through the wilderness, which formed the basis of the list of Num. 33 and of the historical narrative he has left us. Moses probably acquired the habit of keeping a diary during the first 40 years of his life at the Egyptian court, for we know from the records of Thutmose III, probably a contemporary of Moses, that all events connected with military campaigns were “recorded on [each] day by its name,” and that after the completion of a campaign these field notes were transferred to “a roll of leather in the temple of Amon” (cf. PP 245). It would therefore not have seemed strange to Moses to receive instructions to record the treacherous attack and defeat of Amalek for future reference as a “memorial.”
Rehearse it. These words show that Joshua had already been selected by God to succeed Moses.
I will utterly put out. The destruction of this branch of the Edomite nation was decreed, whereas the rest of the Edomites enjoyed divine protection (see Deut. 2:4, 5). The Amalekites had brutally attacked God’s people, showing no compassion even for their own kindred (Deut. 25:18). This attack, wholly unprovoked, revealed their hatred and defiance of God and sealed their doom as a nation (PP 300).
15. Moses built an altar. The building of an altar implies the offering of a sacrifice. Inasmuch as the sacrifice was offered in celebration of victory, it must have been a thank offering.
Jehovah-nissi. In naming the altar, Moses followed the example of Jacob, who had called one of his altars El-elohe-Israel (Gen. 33:20). The name of Moses’ altar meant “the Lord is my banner” and was intended to glorify God for victory over the Amalekites. “The rod of God” (Ex. 17:9) had been held up by Moses during the battle as soldiers hold up their standards, and as soldiers follow the standard, Israel had followed the directions of God. Thus, the Lord became their standard. While in Egypt the Israelites had frequently seen the military standards of the Egyptian armies, which bore pictorial representations of their gods Amen, Ra, Ptah, Sutekh, and others, after whom their divisions were named. Giving the name “the Lord is my standard” to this altar, Moses used familiar language and at the same time called attention to the fact that the standard of the Lord was more powerful than the emblems of the Amalekites. The name “Jehovah-nissi” stands for holy boldness.
16. Because the Lord hath sworn. Literally, “Because the hand [of Amalek] was against the throne of the Lord.” The Hebrew text of this passage is obscure. The rendering of the RSV, “A hand upon the banner of the Lord!” is based upon the change of one consonant, by which the word “throne” becomes “banner.” The Hebrew letters n and k are similar, and some copyist may easily have mistaken the former for the latter. Many commentators today prefer this rendering because it seems to be more in harmony with the context, particularly v. 15, where the same Hebrew word for “banner” is used.
2. Zipporah, Moses’ wife. See on ch. 2:21.
After he had sent her back. Some commentators have thought that Zipporah left her husband in anger after the circumcision of her son on the way to Egypt (ch. 4:24-26). This view is untenable, since the record does not state that she returned to her father but that Moses sent her back. This he had done for her own safety (PP 255), in view of the danger to which Zipporah and her sons would be exposed in Egypt during the struggle with Pharaoh (see also PP 383).
4. Eliezer. Moses’ second son has not previously been mentioned by name, but was probably the one circumcised by Zipporah on the way to Egypt (ch. 4:25). Eliezer means “my God is [my] help.” In contrast, the name Moses gave his first son, Gershom, means “banishment” (ch. 2:22), reflecting a spirit of despondency natural to an exile. The name of the second son revealed the father’s gratitude for the divine protection enjoyed during his flight from Egypt. That Eliezer’s name is mentioned and explained here for the first time is no valid reason for thinking that he had been without a name. From 1 Chron. 23:17 we learn that Eliezer had but one son, Rehabiah, whose descendants had become numerous in the time of Solomon.
5. The mount of God. The “mount of God,” where Jethro found Moses and the Israelites encamped, was Horeb (ch. 3:1). It had been in its neighborhood that God appeared to Moses in the fiery bush. It was near here also that Moses had smitten the rock and given water to his thirsty people (ch. 17:6).
6. And he said. The Hebrew text may also be rendered “and someone said,” or, “and it was said.” This agrees better with the context, for Jethro and Moses had not yet met (see v. 7). It seems that Jethro, on arriving in the vicinity of the camp, sent a messenger to Moses, who spoke in his name and announced his arrival. The RSV reads, “And when one told Moses,” etc.
7. Moses went out. Oriental courtesy required such conduct in case of an honored, or even a welcome, visitor (see Gen. 18:2; 19:1; Luke 15:20; etc.). It was evidently Moses’ intention to receive Jethro with all possible honor and respect. He not only went out to meet him but bowed before him as before a superior.
8. Moses told. Jethro had probably heard something of the story of Israel’s deliverance. News of the miraculous events that preceded the Exodus, as well as victory over the Egyptian army at the Red Sea, must have spread like wildfire through the countries bordering on Egypt.
10 Blessed be the Lord. Every phase of Jethro’s conduct proves him a religious man and a believer in the true God. Of this his thanksgiving to the Lord, the God of the Israelites, is striking proof.
Delivered the people. A repetition of what has already been stated in the first part of the verse. Following the LXX, the RSV omits the last clause of the verse. The RSV, but not the LXX, inserts this clause in the middle of v. 11.
11. Now I know. This text is not easy to explain, and has been taken by some commentators as proof that Jethro was a polytheist. Jethro, however, was “the godly priest of Midian” (PP 301). Here, with the additional evidence recounted by Moses, Jethro simply reaffirms his faith in the true God.
For in the thing. This statement is even less clear than the preceding one. The translators of the KJV apparently understood Jethro to say that God had shown Himself superior to the gods of Egypt. A more literal translation would read, “Even in the very matter that they [the Egyptians] dealt proudly against them [the Israelites].” Such a rendition sees the superiority of the Lord revealed in the way the pride of the Egyptians was humbled by the power of God (see on v. 10).
12. Took a burnt offering. Sacrifices were instituted by God Himself as soon as sin entered the world (see on Gen. 3:21; 4:3, 4). The practice of offering sacrifices was perpetuated by all who knew and honored God (see Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:7, 8; 22:13; etc.). Like Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), Jethro was recognized as a priest of the true God (Ex. 2:16; PP 301), and therefore had the right to offer sacrifices. It would seem, however, that the Midianites, generally, were idolaters (Num. 25:17, 18; 31:16). Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel would not have partaken of a sacrificial meal had it been tainted by heathen practices or performed by a man who was not a worshiper of the God of heaven.
To eat bread. Of the burnt offering itself nothing was eaten. It was completely consumed, since in its entirety it was considered as belonging to God (Lev. 1:3-17). The other sacrifices here mentioned were such that, after the blood had been poured out before God and certain portions of the flesh burnt on the altar, the “elders” might eat what remained (see 1 Sam. 2:15, 16).
13. Moses sat to judge. In ancient times a ruler, whether king, prince, or chieftain, also exercised the office of judge. Legislative, executive, and judicial powers were all vested in one individual. For several centuries preceding the monarchy the leaders of Israel were called “judges,” and their administration was referred to as “judgment.” Like these successors of Moses, the chief rulers of Carthage also bore the title of “judges.” Since the time when he was accepted as leader by the people (ch. 4:29-31), Moses, it appears, regarded himself as obligated to hear and decide all complaints that arose among his people. Thus far he had not delegated judicial authority to anyone else. This cannot have been because the idea had not occurred to him, for in Egypt a judicial system existed, with judges appointed by the king. It may be that he doubted the ability of his countrymen, who had been slaves all their lives, to serve in such a capacity.
From the morning unto the evening. We do not know whether Moses was always as busy as he was upon the day after Jethro’s arrival. Commentators have conjectured that many complaints may have arisen out of the division of the spoil of the Amalekites, or that the unusual situation in which the people suddenly found themselves, upon liberation from slavery, produced more problems than would otherwise have been the case. They had lived all their lives under the rigid authority of Egyptian taskmasters, without freedom to make decisions of their own. Suddenly they had become their own masters, and must now associate together as equals. Under such circumstances smooth and harmonious community life can exist only when all abide by commonly understood and accepted rules.
14. Why sittest thou thyself alone? Jethro’s rebuke was not concerned with Moses’ technique of judgment. He did not object, as some commentators have thought, to Moses’ sitting while the people stood, as being humiliating for them. He did protest, however, that Moses should divide his burden by delegating certain duties of leadership to others qualified to bear them.
15. To enquire of God. This undoubtedly means that the people came to Moses as to one whom they regarded as qualified to speak for God. They did not look to Moses as they had looked toward the judges they knew in Egypt, but considered him as the appointed mouthpiece of God. Apparently, this was also Moses’ point of view, and since the Lord had not instructed him otherwise, he felt it his duty to decide all cases brought to him.
16. I do make them know. Some commentators have taken the reference to statutes and laws as proof that the visit of Jethro occurred after the giving of the law at Sinai. Others have pointed out that the practice described in this passage would not have been necessary after the giving of the law, and that its existence at the time of Jethro’s visit fixes the visit as having occurred before the law was formally proclaimed to Israel. The latter explanation seems preferable. God had not left His people for thousands of years without moral law. Cain knew that murder was sin (Gen. 4:8-13), Shem and Japheth demonstrated acquaintance with the law by shunning indecency (Gen. 9:23), Abraham observed God’s commandments (Gen. 26:5), and even the Philistine king Abimelech knew that adultery was “a great sin” (Gen. 20:9). The mentioning of “my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:5) in the time of the patriarchs is therefore not anachronistic, but shows clearly man’s knowledge of such divinely imparted laws before Sinai. Moses, who during the 40 years of his desert sojourn had recorded the history of God’s dealings with the patriarchs, must have been well acquainted with the moral principles set forth in the book of Genesis.
18. Thou wilt surely wear away. Jethro showed wisdom in the counsel he gave his son-in-law. It is a sacred duty to have regard for one’s health, and not unnecessarily overtax one’s strength.
19. Be thou for the people to God-ward. Or, “You shall represent the people before God” (RSV). Replying to Moses’ explanation as to why the people came to him and why he consented to deal with their various cases, Jethro pointed out that it is one thing to lay down principles and another to apply them. Moses might reserve the legislative function to himself, and in that capacity transmit to the people divine principles. But he should also select men able to apply the principles to the various situations that arose, and delegate to these persons the judicial function of government (vs. 21, 22).
Bring the causes unto God. In difficult cases Moses actually laid the cause before God and obtained directions from Him as to the decision he should render (see Num. 15:32-36; 27:5-11).
20. Ordinances and laws. Jethro’s distinction between “ordinances” and “laws” is not clear. Some regard “statutes” as connected with religion and “laws” as regulations with respect to civil and social matters. Others explain the first as “specific” and the second as “general” enactments. Jethro’s advice that Moses ought to “shew them the way wherein they must walk” does clearly reveal that he meant Moses should lay down broad principles to guarantee equality and justice. The RSV renders these two terms as “statutes,” or the laws themselves, and “decisions,” or principles to be followed in applying the laws.
21. Able men. Jethro not only counseled Moses to choose “able men” but listed the qualifications these men should have—piety, moral integrity, and fairness. His conception of the character of a true judge leaves little to be desired. If these qualities were required today in the choice of men for responsible positions in government, the strength of a nation would be greatly increased.
Rulers. The system proposed by Jethro would guarantee fair treatment for all. Little matters could thus be decided by the family heads, the “rulers of tens.” More difficult cases would be referred to the next higher authority, or court of appeal. Matters of a more serious nature would be brought to the “rulers of thousands.”
22. At all seasons. Instead of occasional court days, on which Moses sat hearing cases and rendered decisions all day long, provision was to be made for prompt consideration of problems as they arose.
23. And God command thee so. Although Jethro was convinced of the soundness of his counsel and the importance of its being followed, he nevertheless modestly left the choice of adopting it up to Moses. Knowing that his son-in-law acted according to divine directions in all matters, he realized that the success of the plan would be assured only if God should approve of it, and that only on this condition would Moses accept it. That Moses acted in harmony with Jethro’s advice is evidence that it did receive divine sanction, and that in giving it Jethro must have been inspired by the Spirit of God.
25. Moses chose able men. Verses 24-26 give the impression that Moses carried out Jethro’s advice immediately. Deuteronomy 1:9-15 indicates that Moses did not actually arrange for the selection of these judges until after the law was given at Sinai. Moses apparently awaited divine approval of the plan. Execution of the plan is related here, pursuant to Moses’ habit of dealing with subjects topically rather than chronologically. To fail to keep this literary characteristic of Moses in mind may lead to erroneous conclusions (see on Ex. 16:33, 35). It appears from Deut. 1:13 that instead of selecting the men himself Moses directed their nomination by the people, after which he invested them with the authority of their office.
Made them heads. From the time of their appointment the “rulers” were not merely judges but “heads” over their respective companies, with authority over them on the march, in the camp, and on the battlefield (see Num. 31:14). Both civil and military functions seem to have been combined.
27. He went his way. Jethro must have considered his visit to the Israelite camp one of the high points of his life. He there received a firsthand report of the marvelous doings of the God of his ancestor Abraham, whom he also served, whereby his own faith was strengthened.
1. In the third month. That is, Sivan, comparable to our late May or early June. Verses 1 and 2 deal with the last stage of the journey of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai. At Mt. Sinai there occurred one of the great events of Jewish history, the incorporation of Israel as a church and a nation under the theocracy (PP 303). This form of government continued until, with the words, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15), the Jews withdrew from it (DA 738). The process of organization at Sinai included the proclamation of the Ten Commandments, the ratification of the covenant, the construction of the tabernacle, the giving of ceremonial and civil laws, and the perfection of various civil and military procedures. A unique relationship was effected between the Lord and the descendants of Abraham, one into which no other nation would ever enter. Its purpose was to prepare the way for the coming of Christ as man’s Saviour.
The same day. Literally, “on this very day,” perhaps the first day of Sivan, possibly the 15th. Jewish tradition placed this event on the first day of the third month of the Jewish year. If so, the journey from Rameses to Sinai probably took 45 days.
The wilderness of Sinai. This is generally regarded as being the plain er-Raha, a nearly flat, bush-studded plain or desert, approximately 2 mi. long and 1/2 mi. wide (see on ch. 3:1). It was a suitable place for the Hebrews to gather to receive the law God was soon to proclaim, surrounded as it was by mountains which formed a natural amphitheater. At its southeastern end rose an almost perpendicular cliff of granite, which provided a high pulpit, or altar, from which the voice of the Lord might be heard. At the foot of this cliff was a series of low mounds that may have helped determine the “bounds” (v. 12) designed to keep the people from touching the mountain.
It was in such a majestic, inspiring environment that the law was given to Israel. It has been well observed that no spot in the world can be pointed out that combines in a more remarkable manner the conditions of a commanding height and of a plain, in every part of which the sights and sounds described in Exodus would reach an assembled multitude. It was a location of solitude, where the people could be entirely alone with God, away from everything that would draw their thought and attention from things divine. For more than 11 months Israel was to remain at Sinai. Here, besides receiving the law and ratifying the covenant, they would have time for the construction of the sanctuary and for the further development of their organization. It would afford them an opportunity for quiet reflection upon their responsibility toward the Lord.
God’s people need such periods of rest, as Christ advised the disciples (see Mark 6:31). We have the example of Paul, who himself “went into Arabia,” possibly to this very place (see Gal. 1:17). All of us need our Sinais, where, in quietness and solitude, God can do for us what He did for Israel, revealing His will, instructing us in it, and impressing us anew with His majesty. Sinai was a place of such solemnity that the minds of the people would irresistibly be elevated to communion with the Infinite. The very sternness and grandeur of the surroundings were a fit commentary on the sanctity of the law. As a fruitless, barren desert, Sinai is also a sharp reminder that of ourselves we can bear no spiritual fruit to the glory of God and cannot work out our own salvation. Did not Christ Himself say, “Without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5)?
2. Camped before the mount. From Rephidim the Hebrews moved in a southeasterly direction toward Mt. Sinai. It is probable that most of the people pitched their tents in the afore-mentioned plain, but some may have encamped in adjacent valleys to the northeast and west, from which Mt. Sinai itself could be seen.
3. Moses went up. Verses 3-9 introduce the first covenant between God and Israel. Moses was familiar with this region, because it was here that God had revealed Himself in the burning bush. In the same locality God was again to reveal Himself to His servant, now no longer a lonely fugitive but exalted to be the leader of God’s own people. A flood of memories must have coursed through Moses’ mind as he ascended the mount. His faith must have been greatly strengthened for the difficult task of leadership ahead, for the Lord’s promise that he and his fellow Israelites would worship God in this place was about to be fulfilled (see Ex. 3:12). We may be sure that Moses ascended the mountain with a confident though reverent step.
The house of Jacob. This reference to their ancestor was a reminder of the promises vouchsafed to him (see Gen. 28:13, 14; 35:11). The mention of his name would recall the blessings graciously bestowed upon him, and these were a pledge of the blessings the Lord now offered them. That God should take the initiative in proposing a covenant was inevitable, for man is not in a position to exact terms from Heaven. Yet the covenant is an expression not only of God’s sovereignty but of His grace and mercy as well. He it is who first seeks man—not man, God (see 1 John 4:10, 19).
4. The Egyptians. That God should call attention to past evidences of His love before revealing His law, is worthy of note. Thus He would win their confidence; thus He would strengthen their faith in Him and encourage them to do His will. He would certify the blessings of the future by blessings enjoyed in the past. What God had done for Israel in delivering them from Egypt, in leading them safely through the Red Sea, and in giving them the manna, was a guarantee of what He would yet do for them should they remain true to Him. Without this assurance the terrors of Sinai could scarcely have been endured.
Eagles’ wings. As the parent bird takes the eaglet from its nest, teaches it to fly, and protects the young with its own life, so the Lord took His people from the captivity of Egypt that He might lead them to the land of Canaan. He would bear them up with His “wings,” and protect them from danger. As the weak and helpless eaglet, while fearful of danger, had confidence in the strength and protection of its parent, so Israel, weak, helpless, and fearful of what might lie ahead, could have faith in divine power (Deut. 32:11, 12).
5. If ye will obey. Rather than command the Hebrews to keep His covenant, as was His sovereign right, God graciously invited His people to do that which would be for their own benefit. The only avenue upon which we can walk with God is that of obedience. On no other terms but obedience could God consent to be their God or to have them for His chosen people. The grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ that brings salvation to all men (Titus 2:11) does not release them from their obligation to obey the divine law (Rom. 3:31). Faith in the redeeming Christ is inseparably joined to the power of the indwelling Christ, which enables one to keep the Ten Commandments (Rom. 8:1-4). Jesus and the apostles most emphatically affirmed the principle of obedience to divine law (Matt. 5:17, 18; 19:16, 17; 1 Cor. 7:19; James 1:25; 2:10-12; 1 John 2:3, 4).
My covenant. The covenant God made with Israel at Sinai is generally called the “old covenant” (Heb. 8:13). Owing to the failure of the people to appreciate fully the purpose of God and to enter into the true spirit of the covenant, it stood forth in contrast to the new, or gospel, covenant as follows: (1) It was more elementary (Gal. 4:1-5). (2) It was more closely related to outward rites and ceremonies (Heb. 9:1). (3) Its motives were largely penalties and rewards, for, as “children,” these were the only incentives Israel was yet prepared to understand (Gal. 4:3; PP 371). (4) Its blessings were largely temporal. (5) It trusted in human accomplishment and good works rather than in divine grace and a Saviour from sin (see on Ex. 19:8). The signal blessing of the new covenant is that through faith in Christ, power is imparted to the believer to fulfill “the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 8:1-4; cf. Acts 13:37-39).
God permitted Israel to attempt to keep the law, so they might become aware of their inability to do what they mistakenly felt able to do. They would thus be led from trust in self to trust in God, from confidence in their own endeavors to faith in divine accomplishment. Thus, the law would become the means of leading them to Christ as their only Saviour from sin (Gal. 3:23-26). Thus, the way was prepared for the new covenant relationship, the gospel of divine grace, the law kept in and through Christ (Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 3:21-31; 8:1-4; Heb. 8:7-11). As Paul declares, this new covenant relationship does not “make void the law through faith” (Rom. 3:31). The law remains the standard of duty, the norm of holy practice. The new covenant establishes the law as the eternal code of righteousness, without which there can be no holy conduct.
A peculiar treasure. Rather, “my own possession” (RSV; see also Ps. 135:4; Isa. 43:1-4). In the sight of God no other nation was equal to Israel. Every child of God, every consecrated Christian, is a jewel in the crown of our Lord, and is so considered by Him (Mal. 3:17; see on 1 Peter 2:9).
6. Kingdom of priests. According to the divine plan and purpose the Israelites were to be both a royal and a priestly race. In an evil world they were to be kings, moral and spiritual, in that they were to prevail over the realm of sin (Rev. 20:6). As priests, they were to draw near to the Lord in prayer, in praise, and in sacrifice. As intermediaries between God and the heathen, they were to serve as instructors, preachers, and prophets, and were to be examples of holy living—Heaven’s exponents of true religion. In His coming kingdom God has a royal place for His royal children (Matt. 19:28; Luke 19:17-19; John 14:1-3; Rev. 1:6; 2:26; 3:21; cf. Zech. 6:13).
An holy nation. As a people consecrated to God’s service, they were to be unlike other nations. This was to be manifested outwardly by circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14) and inwardly by godliness (2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Peter 2:9). A holy God demands a holy people (Matt. 5:48; 1 Peter 1:16).
7. The elders. It did not require many words to present the important issue or to answer the imperative question as to whether the people would accept the covenant upon the terms God required. However, before presenting these terms to the people, Moses summoned the elders, preparatory to setting the matter before the people (ch. 24:3; PP 303).
8. All that the Lord hath spoken. Convinced and assured in their hearts that the terms of the covenant would be just and good, and desirous of securing for themselves and their posterity the blessings the Lord had promised, the elders readily accepted the covenant before knowing what its exact provisions would be. It was desirable that the people should express willingness to enter into such a covenant as God proposed, and to have time to think the matter through before being called to make formal ratification of it. If they were willing to obey God, the details of the covenant would follow. Nevertheless, while there was no doubt a noble desire on the part of the Israelites to respond to God’s call for obedience, they entered into the covenant relationship with but little knowledge of themselves and with no appreciation of their inability to keep the divine precepts and thus fulfill their part of the agreement. Like so many deceived souls, they thought they had but to try in order to do. God permitted the attempt in order that they might discover their inability and so be led to rely upon God. Paul’s own experience is a pertinent case in point (see Rom. 7).
The spontaneous cry, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do,” was without question a superficial demonstration of religious enthusiasm, a momentary reaction to a glorious and sublime truth. There was lacking the spirit of deep, true conversion, the “heart” to do what God demanded (Deut. 5:29). It is small wonder the people soon apostatized, and worshiped the golden calf (Ex. 32).
9. In a thick cloud. When God speaks to men He must always veil His glory, for sinful men cannot bear it (Ex. 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). If God clothes Himself with humanity, the human form is the veil. If He appears in a burning bush, the fire itself is a shroud. Here at Sinai, since many of the people were ungodly and impenitent, it was the more necessary that He should cover Himself. The cloud out of which God spoke was the pillar of cloud that accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt and directed their march (Ex. 13:21, 22; Num. 11:25; 12:15; PP 301).
Believe thee for ever. One purpose of God in appearing visibly to Moses was to give the people irrefutable proof that Moses stood before them as God’s representative.
10. Sanctify them. The Lord was about to proclaim His holy law in person, in order to remove all suspicion that Moses had anything whatever to do with its composition. Their appearance in the presence of God would require sanctification, without which none can see Him (Heb. 12:14). Sanctification is essentially a matter of the spirit, of being “pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8). The outward acts of preparation were designed to impress upon the people the need of preparing their hearts to meet God (1 Thess. 5:23; 1 John 3:3). Though to the Egyptians purification meant washing the body, including also shaving the hair from the head, and sometimes from the entire body, the Israelites seem to have purified themselves by washing only.
Holiness is to be considered seriously each time we approach God. The unholy will not be rejected by Him if they come in repentance, accepting the grace of Christ. He accepts the sinner that He may make him holy, and thus qualify him for fellowship with God (Eph. 1:4; 5:25-27; Titus 2:11-14). Since the law that was soon to be given is an expression of God’s holiness, it was only fitting that the people prepare to receive it by sanctifying themselves. If the Israelites were to be the people of God, it was imperative that they appreciate the sacredness of this relationship. Therefore we can understand why God made the giving of His holy law an occasion to impress the people, deeply and dramatically, with the conviction of its sanctity and importance. This was particularly necessary since the Hebrews, oppressed by their Egyptian masters, had to a great extent lost a knowledge of the character and majesty of God.
To day and to morrow. According to Jewish tradition this would be the fourth and fifth of the month Sivan, the Decalogue being given on the sixth. The two days’ preparation was to lend emphasis to the sanctity of the event.
Wash. The rich might change their clothes when occasion required, but the people, in general, the poorer classes, having no change of garments, must wash those they wore (Lev. 15:5).
11. Come down. Generally in the Bible, God is represented as dwelling in the heavens above (1 Kings 8:30, 49; John 8:23). Therefore, when He appears on the earth He is said to “come down” (Gen. 11:5-7; 18:21; Ex. 3:8).
12. Set bounds. Moses was to erect a barrier of some kind about the base of the mountain. It may have extended along the line of low mounds guarding the foot of the cliff. So long as the people refrained from crossing these “bounds” they were safe.
It has been fittingly remarked that Sinai, with all its described terrors, was not Vesuvius; the people beneath were not gathered in a doomed Herculaneum or Pompeii. The purpose of the Lord was simply to manifest the reality, extent, and proximity of His destroying power. Men were made to feel what that power could do, if they were so presumptuous or negligent as to come within its rightful exercise.
Whosoever toucheth. Because the cliff rises abruptly from the plain, some might easily come in contact with it, either carelessly or out of curiosity.
Be surely put to death. This severe punishment was specifically announced by God to impress upon the people in no uncertain terms what it meant to be in the presence of a holy God. The penalty was fully in keeping with the awful solemnity of the occasion. Further, we should not forget that it was only by sobering threats of punishment that the Israelites, prone at times to be presumptuous and to rebel against the divine will, could be taught reverence (see 2 Sam. 6:6, 7). There can be no true religious feeling without a profound sense of reverence. To inculcate such an attitude among the Israelites, it was imperative to impress the lesson in a dramatic and striking fashion.
13. Not an hand touch it. Or, “No hand shall touch him” (RSV). The one transgressing the divine command was not to be seized, for the one making the arrest would have to pass the “bounds” in order to do so. Instead, the transgressor was to be killed by stones thrown or arrows shot from within the “bounds.” The same was to be done to any beast that strayed into the restricted area, lest anyone be tempted to enter the restricted area to retrieve his stray animal. Everything was done to impress the Israelites with the awful majesty of God, and the spirit of solemnity that should fill one’s heart upon approaching the divine presence.
God is ever present (Ps. 139:1-12), but He veils His presence. Though He is with us we do not perceive Him (Job 23:8, 9). But when He does reveal His presence, all tremble before Him (Gen. 28:16, 17; Job 42:5, 6; Hab. 3:16). Weakness quakes before strength, littleness shrinks before greatness, finite man becomes insignificant in the presence of the Infinite. It is consciousness of sin that makes a man tremble before a holy God (Gen. 3:10). Corruption quails before incorruption, moral depravity before absolute purity.
They shall come up. The pronoun “they” cannot here refer to the people, for this would contradict the command of the previous verse. The people never did ascend the mount. But Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders did (see Ex. 24:1, 2), and they are probably the ones here referred to.
14. Moses went down. Returning to the foot of Mt. Sinai, Moses, in obedience to the command of v. 10, instructed the people in regard to preparations for the giving of the law. At the same time he must have ordered the construction of the fence which was to hold the people back from the mount, and to which he alludes in v. 23 as completed.
16. Thunders. Verses 16-20 deal with the manifestations of the divine presence upon Sinai. In revealing Himself to man the Lord employs various methods. To Elijah He came as “a still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12), to the prophet Daniel and the apostle John He used visions, to the disciples He spoke directly through His Son. To Paul, God appeared in ecstatic vision, the apostle hearing “unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:1-5). Here, when God would impress all with the importance and majesty of His law as the constitution of His spiritual kingdom, He appears with terrifying grandeur (Heb. 12:18-21).
17. Brought forth the people. It is evident that the camp itself must have been back some distance from the foot of the mount, with an open space between the first tents and the barrier that Moses had erected close to the mount. Into this vacant space Moses now led the people, thus bringing them as near as they dared approach the divine presence.
19. Moses spake. So awful was the sight, the mount being covered with smoke (v. 18), and so fearful the sound of the trumpet (v. 16), that Moses could not remain silent. To relieve the tension he broke forth in words, perhaps those recorded in Heb. 12:21. There is suggested a profound meaning in the words “Moses spake, and God answered,” which offer a striking definition of the nature of divine law. All God’s commands are, so to speak, responses to our deep soul needs. They issue forth from the reciprocal action of God and the human heart. Paul in Rom. 7 illustrates this. Man, by his very creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), can never find satisfaction in being alive unless his life is in tune with the Creator. The Decalogue is the tuning instrument. It is not simply a code expressing the will and the sovereignty of God; it is also an instrument of spiritual instruction to help us live as God intends that we should (Ps. 19:7, 8; 119:97, 98; Matt. 19:16, 17).
20. The top of the mount. Probably not Jebel Musa, which was invisible from the plain where the people must have been assembled, but Ras es-Safsaf, the highest eminence of the Sinai mountains fronting on the plain (see on v. 1 and on ch. 3:1).
Called Moses up. The context would lead us to think that Aaron went up with Moses, for Aaron was present there (v. 24) and is probably included in the “us” of v. 23.
21. Charge the people. In the closing verses of this chapter the people and the priests are again warned not to pass the “bounds.” This repetition would suggest that there were those who had not taken the restriction seriously, but were ready to “break through” the “bounds” to peer irreverently upon the glory of God (see Num. 4:20; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Sam. 6:6, 7).
22. The priests also. Special mention of the “priests” would indicate that the urge to trespass was particularly strong among them. Trained as they were to exercise sacred functions, they may have considered themselves practically equal to Moses and Aaron. They may have resented their exclusion from the divine presence. Were they not the appointed intermediaries between God and man?
Sanctify themselves. It would seem from this command that the priests had not regarded the injunction of v. 10 as applying to them, and so did not comply with it. Hence the charge to do so was directed specially to them. Holiness of office does not necessarily mean holiness in the individual who holds it. Ministers of God are not given any special immunity from iniquity, as the Scriptures often demonstrate (see Lev. 10:1, 2; 1 Sam. 2:12-17; 4:17). This verse and Ex. 24:5 show that there were those set aside for priestly services before the institution of the Levitical order (see PP 350).
23. Cannot come up. Inasmuch as God’s command in v. 12 had been carried out, Moses assures God that the people could not unwittingly trespass upon the precincts of the sacred mount.
24. Get thee down. God rejects Moses’ plea that there was no need of warning the people further. God knew what His servant did not know, and to prevent trouble insisted upon a renewed warning.
Thou, and Aaron. Though this is the first express mention of Aaron as appointed to ascend the amount with Moses, it seems likely that he had come up previously (see vs. 3, 20, 23; cf. ch. 10:1, 3).
25. Moses went down. Subdued by the divine rebuke, Moses returned to the camp to warn both priests and people.
1. God spake. The stage was now set for the proclamation of the moral law, which has remained the fundamental standard of conduct for countless millions ever since. None will deny that this was one of the momentous and decisive events of history. Nor can any deny the vital need of all men for such a code of conduct, because of their moral and spiritual imperfections and their proneness to do that which is evil. The Decalogue stands high above all other moral and spiritual laws. It is comprehensive of all human conduct. It is the only law that can effectively control the conscience. It is for all time a condensed manual of human conduct and covers the entire field of human duty. Our Lord referred to the commandments as the way whereby one might secure eternal life (Matt. 19:16-19). They are suited to every kind of human society, applicable and in force so long as the world shall last (Matt. 5:17, 18). They can never become obsolete, for they are the immutable expression of God’s will and character. It was with good reason that God delivered them to His people both orally and in writing (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 4:13).
Though given to man by divine authority, the Decalogue is not an arbitrary creation of the divine will. It is, rather, an expression of the divine nature. Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), made to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:15, 16), and the Ten Commandments are Heaven’s ordained standard of holiness (see Rom. 7:7-25). The key to the spiritual interpretation of the law was given by Christ in the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5 to 7).
The Decalogue is the expression not only of holiness but also of love (Matt. 22:34-40; John 15:10; Rom. 13:8-10; 1 John 2:4). Whatever in service we render to God or man, if it be without love, the law is not fulfilled. It is love that protects us from violating the Ten Commandments, for how could we worship other gods, take His name in vain, and neglect the observance of the Sabbath if we truly love Him? How can we steal that which belongs to our neighbor, testify against him, or covet his possessions if we love him? Love is the root of fidelity toward God, and of honor and respect for the rights of our fellows. It should ever be the great motive that impels us to obedience (John 14:15; 15:10; 2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 5:6).
When a man first comes to Christ he will consciously abstain from the evil to which he has been accustomed. It was primarily for the purpose of helping sinners distinguish between good and evil that the Decalogue was given largely in negative form. Its recurring “Thou shalt not” testifies to the presence of strong tendencies in the heart that must be suppressed (see Jer. 17:9; Rom. 7:17-23; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10). But this negative form implies a large and satisfying field of moral and spiritual action open to man, and the breadth of character development possible. He is restricted only by the few prohibitions named. The Decalogue certifies to the truth of Christian freedom (James 2:12; 2 Cor. 3:17). Though the letter of the law, because of its few words, may appear to be narrow in scope, its spirit is “exceeding broad” (Ps. 119:96).
The fact that the Ten Commandments were written on two tables of stone emphasizes their application to two classes of moral obligation: duty to God and duty to man (Matt. 22:34-40). That which we owe to God is indispensable to that which we owe to man, for neglect of duties toward our neighbor will speedily follow the neglect of duty toward God. The Bible does not ignore the distinction between religion (duties directly related to God) and morality (duties arising from earthly relationships), but unites both in the deeper concept that all one does is done, as it were, to God, whose authority is supreme in both spheres (see Micah 6:8; Matt. 25:34-45; James 1:27; 1 John 4:20).
As the words of God, the Ten Commandments are to be distinguished from the “judgments” (ch. 21:1) based upon them and included with them in “the book of the covenant” as constituting the statutory law of Israel (see ch. 24:3). The two tables, which comprise the Decalogue, are, to the exclusion of the other parts of the law, variously called “the testimony” (ch. 25:16), “his covenant” (Deut. 4:13), “the words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:28), the “tables of testimony” (Ex. 31:18; 32:15), and “the tables of the covenant” (Deut. 9:9-11). These tables of stone, and these alone, were placed inside the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 1 Kings 8:9). They were thus regarded as in a special sense the bond of the covenant. The placing of the tables under the mercy seat casts light on the nature of the covenant God made with Israel. It shows that the law is the substratum, the foundation of the covenant, the obligatory document, the bond. Nevertheless, over the law is the mercy seat, sprinkled with the blood of propitiation, a heartening testimony that there is forgiveness with God for those who break the commandments. The OT consistently makes a clear distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws (2 Kings 21:8; Dan. 9:11).
2. I am the Lord. Literally, “I am Yahweh,” a name derived from the verb “to be,” “to become” (see on Ex. 3:14, 15; see p. 172). It means “the Existing One,” “the One who causes to be” (see p. 172). When, therefore, Jesus said to the Jews of His day, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), they understood that He was claiming to be “the Lord” of the OT. This explains their hostility and their attempt to kill Him (John 8:59). It was Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, who was the “God” of the Israelites throughout their history (Ex. 32:34; John 1:1-3, 14; 6:46, 62; 17:5; 1 Cor. 10:4; Col. 1:13-18; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 1:17, 18; PP 366). It was He who gave them the Decalogue; it was He who declared Himself to be “Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28). The Gr. hē zoē, “the living One” (Rev. 1:18, RSV), is equivalent to the Heb. Eyeh ’asher ’ehyeh, “I am that I am,” of Ex. 3:14.
The house of bondage. God proclaimed His holy law amid thunder and lightning, whose roll seems to find an echo in the imperatives “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not.” The terrors of Sinai were designed to bring vividly before the people the awful solemnity of the last great judgment day (PP 339). The exacting precepts of the Decalogue stress the justice of their Author and the strictness of His requirements. But the law was also a reminder of His grace, for the very God who spoke the law is the One who led His people forth from Egypt and set them free from the yoke of bondage. It is He who gave the precious promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Since the Scriptures make Egypt symbolic of the state of sin (see Rev. 11:8), the deliverance of Israel from Egypt may appropriately be compared to the deliverance of all God’s people from the power of sin. The Lord liberated His people from the land of Pharoah in order that He might give them His law (Ps. 105:42-45). Likewise, through the gospel, Christ frees us from the bondage of sin (John 8:34-36; 2 Peter 2:19) in order that we may keep His law, which in Him is translated into true obedience (John 15:10; Rom. 8:1-4). Let those who teach that the gospel of Christ frees us from the holy commands of the Decalogue reflect on this truth. Deliverance from Egypt was to provide the motive for obedience to God’s law. Note the order here: the Lord first saves Israel, then gives them His law to keep. The same order is true under the gospel. Christ first saves us from sin (see John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4), then lives out His law within us (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 4:25; 8:1-3; 1 Peter 2:24).
3. Thou shalt. Though the covenant was made with Israel as a whole (ch. 19:5), the use of a singular verb shows that God addressed each individual of the nation and required of him obedience to the law. Collective obedience was not sufficient. For all time the Ten Commandments direct their appeal to, and weigh upon, each man’s conscience (see Eze. 18:19, 20).
Before me. Literally, “before my face.” This Hebrew idiom often means “besides me,” “in addition to me,” or “in opposition to me.” Being the only true God, the Lord requires that He alone be worshiped. This concept of but one God was foreign to the polytheistic belief and practice of other nations. God appeals to us to put Him before all else, to put Him first in our affections and in our lives, in harmony with our Lord’s injunction in the sermon on the mount (Matt. 6:33). Mere belief alone will not do, nor even the acknowledgement that He is the one and only God. We owe wholehearted allegiance and devotion to Him as a personal Being whom it is our privilege to know, to love, and trust, and with whom we may have blessed fellowship. Dependence upon something else than God, whether it be wealth, knowledge, position, or friends, places us in peril. It is hard to fight against the allurements of the world, and so easy to trust in that which is visible and temporal (see Matt. 6:19-34; 1 John 2:15-17). In our materialistic age it is not difficult to violate the spirit of this first commandment, by putting our trust and confidence in some earthly convenience or comfort, and in so doing forget the One who created the things we enjoy (see 2 Cor. 4:18).
4. Graven image. As the first commandment emphasizes the fact that there is but one God, in protest against the worship of many gods, the second places emphasis upon His spiritual nature (John 4:24), in disapproval of idolatry and materialism. This commandment does not necessarily prohibit the use of sculpture and painting in religion. The artistry and representation employed in the construction of the sanctuary (Ex. 25:17-22), in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:23-26), and in the “brasen serpent” (Num. 21:8, 9; 2 Kings 18:4) clearly prove that the second commandment does not proscribe religious illustrative material. What is condemned is the reverence, the worship, or quasi worship, which multitudes in many lands give to religious images and pictures. The excuse that the idols themselves are not worshiped does not lessen the force of this prohibition. Idols are not only not to be worshiped, they are not even to be made. The folly of idolatry lies in the fact that idols are merely the product of human skill, and therefore inferior to man and subject to him (Hosea 8:6). But man can truly engage in worship only by directing his thoughts to One greater than himself.
Any likeness. The threefold division here and elsewhere (sky, earth, and water) covers the entire physical universe, from which the heathen drew and fashioned their deities (Deut. 4:15-19; Rom. 1:22, 23).
5. Not bow down. This strikes at the outward honor given images in the ancient world. They were not looked upon as emblems, but as real and actual embodiments of deity. It was believed that the gods took up their abode in these images. Those who made them were not esteemed; they might even be despised. But their idolatrous handiwork was reverentially adored and worshiped.
A jealous God. God refuses to share His glory with idols (Isa. 42:8; 48:11). He declines the worship and service of a divided heart (Ex. 34:12-15; Deut. 4:23, 24; 6:14, 15; Joshua 24:15, 19, 20). Jesus Himself said, “No man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24).
Visiting the iniquity. This seeming threat has disturbed the minds of some who see in it the manifestation of a vengeful spirit. A distinction should be made, however, between the natural results of a sinful course of action, and punishment inflicted because of it (PP 306). God does not penalize one individual for the wrong deeds of another (Eze. 18:2-24). Each man stands before God, responsible only for his own acts. At the same time God does not interfere with the laws of heredity in such a way as to protect one generation from the misdeeds of its fathers, as that would be inconsistent with His character and His principles of dealing with men. It is only through these laws of heredity, which were of course ordained by the Creator in the beginning (see Gen. 1:21, 24, 25), that divine justice visits the “iniquity” of one generation upon the next.
No one can escape completely the consequences of dissipation, disease, profligacy, evil doing, ignorance, and bad habits handed down by preceding generations. The descendants of degraded idolaters and the offspring of evil and vicious men generally begin life under the handicap of physical and moral sin, and harvest the fruit of seed sown by their parents. Juvenile delinquency proves the truth of the second commandment. Environment also has a decided effect upon each rising generation. But since God is gracious and just, we may trust Him to deal fairly with each person, making due allowance for the disadvantages of birth, the inherited predispositions, and the influence of previous environment upon character. His justice and mercy require this (Ps. 87:6; Luke 12:47, 48; John 15:22; Acts 17:30; 2 Cor. 8:12). At the same time our aim is to be victorious over every inherited and cultivated tendency to evil (COL 315, 330, 331; DA 671).
God “visits,” or “appoints,” the results of iniquity, not vindictively, but to teach sinners that a wrong course of action inevitably brings unfortunate results.
Them that hate me. That is, those who, though they know God, refuse to serve Him. To set one’s affections upon false gods of any kind, to place one’s trust in anything besides the Lord, is to “hate” Him. Those who do so inevitably bring trouble and suffering not only upon themselves but also upon those who come after them. Those parents who think most of God, think most of their children. The use of the strong word “hate” is characteristically Oriental, expressing as it does the most intense disapproval. All a man need do to classify himself among those who “hate” God is to love Him less than he loves other persons or things (Luke 14:26; Rom. 9:13).
6. Keep my commandments. It is through obedience that true love for God is shown. Since God Himself is love, and His dealings with His creatures are motivated by love (1 John 4:7-21), God does not wish us to obey Him because we must but because we choose to do so (John 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 John 2:5; 5:3; 2 John 6).
7. In vain. The word thus translated means “iniquity,” “falsehood,” “vanity,” “emptiness.” To inculcate reverence is the chief purpose of the third commandment (see Ps. 111:9; Eccl. 5:1, 2), which is an appropriate sequel to the two that precede it. Those who serve none but the true God, and serve Him in spirit and in truth, will avoid any careless, irreverent, or unnecessary use of the holy name. They will not indulge in profanity. Profanity, or any careless language for that matter, not only violates the spirit of religion but indicates a lack of breeding and gentlemanliness as well.
“Immodest words admit of no defence,
For want of decency is want of sense.”
This commandment applies not only to words we should avoid but to the care with which we should use those that are good (see Matt. 12:34-37).
The third commandment also condemns empty ceremony and formality in worship (see 2 Tim. 3:5), and exalts worship in the true spirit of holiness (John 4:24). It shows that obedience to the letter of the law is not sufficient. None ever reverenced the name of God more strictly than did the Jews, who to this day will not utter it. As a result, no one now knows how it should be pronounced. But in their extreme devotion to the letter of the law the Jews offered God an empty honor. This false zeal did not prevent the tragic mistake of the Jewish nation 2,000 years ago (John 1:11; Acts 13:46).
The third commandment also forbids false swearing, or perjury, which has always been considered a serious moral and social offense deserving of the most severe punishment. The careless use of God’s name denotes a lack of reverence for Him. If our thinking is on a spiritually elevated plane, our words will also be elevated, and will be dictated by what is honest and sincere (Phil. 4:8).
8. Remember. This word does not make the fourth commandment more important than the other nine. All are equally so. To break one is to break all (James 2:8-11). But the Sabbath commandment reminds us that the seventh-day Sabbath, as God’s appointed rest for man, goes back to the very beginning of human history and is an inseparable part of the creation week (Gen. 2:1-3; PP 336). The argument that the Sabbath was first given to man at Sinai is wholly without foundation (Mark 2:27; PP 80, 258). In a personal sense the Sabbath comes as a reminder that amid the pressing cares of life we ought not to forget God. To enter fully into the spirit of the Sabbath is to find a valuable aid in obeying the rest of the Decalogue. The special attention and devotion given on this day of rest to God and to things of eternal value provide reserve power for victory over the evils against which we are warned in the other commandments. The Sabbath has well been compared to a bridge thrown across life’s troubled waters, over which we may pass to reach the opposite shore, a link between earth and heaven, a type of the eternal day when those who are true to God shall put on forever the robe of immortal holiness and joy.
We should “remember” also that mere rest from physical labor does not constitute Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was never intended as a day of idleness and inactivity. Sabbathkeeping is not so much a matter of refraining from certain forms of inactivity as it is of entering purposefully into others. We cease from the weekly round of toil only as a means to the end of devoting the day to other pursuits. The spirit of true Sabbathkeeping will lead one to improve its sacred hours by seeking to understand more perfectly the character and will of God, to appreciate more fully His love and mercy, and to cooperate more effectively with Him in ministering to the spiritual needs of his fellow men. Whatever contributes to these primary objectives is appropriate to the spirit and purpose of the Sabbath. Whatever contributes primarily to the gratification of one’s personal desires or to the pursuit of one’s own interests is no more a part of true Sabbathkeeping than is ordinary labor. This principle applies to thoughts and words as well as to actions.
The Sabbath points us back to a perfect world in the long ago (Gen. 1:31; 2:1-3), and reminds us of the time when the Creator will again “make all things new” (Rev. 21:5). It is a reminder also that God stands ready to restore within our hearts and lives His own image as it was in the beginning (Gen. 1:26, 27). He who enters into the true spirit of Sabbath observance will thus qualify for receiving the seal of God, which is the divine recognition that His character is reflected perfectly in the life (Eze. 20:20). It is our happy privilege once each week to forget everything that reminds us of this world of sin and to “remember” those things that draw us closer to God. The Sabbath may become to us a little sanctuary in the wilderness of this world, where we may for a time be free from its cares and enter, as it were, into the joys of heaven. If the Sabbath rest was desirable for sinless beings in Paradise (Gen. 2:1-3), how much more essential it is for erring mortals preparing to re-enter that blest abode!
9. Shalt thou labour. This is a permission rather than a command. What work is to be done should be performed on the first six days of the week, so that the Sabbath, which comes on the seventh day, may be free for the worship and service of God.
10. The seventh day. No unnecessary secular labor is to be performed on that day. It is to be spent in religious reflection, worship, and service for God. It provides, as well, an opportunity for physical rest. This feature of the Sabbath is peculiarly important to man in his sinful state, when he must earn his bread by the sweat of his face (Gen. 3:17-19).
The Sabbath of the Lord. Literally, “the Lord’s Sabbath.” In Hebrew, “Sabbath” has no definite article, “the,” but this does not take from the Sabbath command its definiteness. The point of controversy between Sundaykeepers and Sabbathkeepers is not over whether a Christian should rest—“not do any work”—one day in the week, but which day of the week that should be, the first or the seventh. The commandment answers explicitly, “the seventh day.” The command divides the week into two parts: (1) “six days shalt thou … do all thy work,” (2) “the seventh day … thou shalt not do any work.” And why this prohibition of work on “the seventh day”? Because it is a “sabbath of the Lord.” The word Sabbath is from the Heb. shabbath, which means “rest.” Thus the command prohibits work on “the seventh day” because it is a rest day of the Lord. This takes us back to the origin of the Sabbath, when God “rested on the seventh day” (Gen. 2:2). It is therefore plain that the contrast is not between “the” and “a,” but between “work” and “rest.” “Six days,” says the command, are work days, but “the seventh day” is a rest day. That “the seventh day” is uniquely God’s rest day is made evident in the opening words of the command: “Remember the sabbath [rest] day, to keep it holy.”
The angels announced to the shepherds: “For unto you is born … a Saviour” (Luke 2:11). We do not therefore conclude that Christ was simply one of many saviors. We capture the meaning of the angel’s words when we put the emphasis on the word “Saviour.” Christ came, not as a military conqueror or an earthly king, but as a Saviour. Numerous other passages deal with the uniqueness of His salvation, and that we can be saved by none other. Thus with the matter of “the” and “a” in the fourth command.
Not do any work. This does not forbid acts of mercy or work essential to the preservation of life and health that cannot be performed on other days. It is always “lawful to do well on the sabbath days” (Matt. 12:1-14; Mark 2:23-28). The rest here spoken of is not to be considered merely in terms of cessation from ordinary labor, though this is, of course, included. It must be a holy rest, in which there is communion with God.
Nor thy cattle. God’s care for dumb animals is repeatedly stressed by OT writers (Ex. 23:5, 12; Deut. 25:4). He remembered them in the ark (Gen. 8:1). They were included in His covenant following the Flood (Gen. 9:9-11). He claims the cattle as His own (Ps. 50:10). The presence of “much cattle” provided one reason why Nineveh was spared (Jonah 4:11).
Thy stranger. That is, a foreigner who of his own free will joined himself to the Israelites. A “mixed multitude” left Egypt with Israel (Ex. 12:38) and accompanied them in their wilderness wanderings. So long as they chose to remain with the Israelites they were to conform to the requirements God set for His own people. In a sense this restricted their liberty, but they were free to depart if they did not wish to obey. In compensation, as it were, they enjoyed a measure of the blessings God bestowed upon Israel (Num. 10:29; Zech. 8:22, 23).
11. The Lord made. It is significant that Christ Himself, as Creator (John 1:1-3), rested upon the world’s first Sabbath day (DA 769) and spoke the law at Sinai (PP 366). Those who are re-created in His likeness (Eph. 4:24) will choose to follow His example in this as in other matters (1 Peter 2:21). The Creator did not “rest” because of weariness or fatigue (Isa. 40:28). His “rest” was cessation of labor at the close of a completed task (Gen. 1:31 to 2:3). In resting He set us an example (Matt. 3:15; cf. Heb. 4:10). The Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), to satisfy a need that was originally spiritual, but which, with the entrance of sin, became physical as well (see Gen. 3:17-19). One of the reasons the Israelites were delivered from Egypt was that they might observe the divinely appointed day of rest. Their oppression in Egypt had made such observance most difficult (see Ex. 5:5-9; Deut. 5:12-15; PK 180).
12. Honour thy father. Having covered in the first four commandments our duties toward God, we now take up the second table of the law, dealing with duties toward our fellows (Matt. 22:34-40). Inasmuch as prior to the age of moral accountability parents stand to their children as the representatives of God (PP 308), it is logical and fitting that our first man-ward duty should be toward them (Deut. 6:6, 7; Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20). Another purpose of this commandment is to engender respect for all rightful authority. Such respect begins with the attitude of children toward their parents. In the mind of the child this becomes the basis for respect and obedience owed to those who are legitimately placed in authority over him throughout life, particularly in the church and in the state (Rom. 13:1-7; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-18). There is included in the spirit of this commandment the thought that those in authority in the home and outside of it should so conduct themselves that they are ever worthy of the respect and obedience of those under them (Eph. 6:4, 9; Col. 3:21; 4:1).
13. Not kill. Any rightful understanding of our relation to our neighbor indicates that we must respect and honor his life, for all life is sacred (Gen. 9:5, 6). Jesus magnified (Isa. 42:21) this commandment to include anger and contempt (Matt. 5:21, 22). Later the apostle John added hatred (1 John 3:14, 15). Not only does this commandment forbid violence to the body, but, what is of far greater consequence, injury to the soul. We break it when we lead others into sin by our example and action, and thus contribute to the destruction of their souls. Those who corrupt the innocent and seduce the virtuous “kill” in a far worse sense than the cutthroat and the bandit, in that they do more than to kill the body (Matt. 10:28).
14. Not commit adultery. This prohibition covers not only adultery but fornication and impurity of any and every kind in act, word, and thought (Matt. 5:27, 28). This, our third duty toward our “neighbour,” is to respect and honor the bond upon which the family is built, that of the marriage relationship, which to the Christian is as precious as life itself (see Heb. 13:4). Marriage makes the husband and wife “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). To be untrue to this sacred union or to lead another to do so is to despise that which is sacred and to commit a crime as well. Throughout human history it has not generally been considered a grievous offense for the husband to become an adulterer. If, however, the wife did so, she has been dealt with most severely. Society speaks of the “fallen woman,” but little is said of the “fallen man.” The commandment applies with equal force to both husband and wife (Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8).
15. Not steal. Here the right to possess property is set forth, a right that is to be respected by others. For society to exist at all, this principle must be safeguarded, else there is no security and no protection. All would be anarchy. This commandment forbids any act by which, directly or indirectly, we dishonestly obtain the goods of another. Especially in these days when the keen edge of morality is becoming increasingly dull, it is well to remember that adulteration, the concealment of defects, misrepresentation of quality, and the employment of false weights or measures are all the acts of a thief as much as pocket picking or shoplifting.
Employees steal when they take a “commission” unknown to their superiors, or appropriate that which has not been expressly agreed upon, or neglect to do whatever work they contracted to do, or perform it in a slovenly manner, or damage the owner’s property through carelessness or diminish it by waste.
Employers steal when they withhold from their employees the benefits they promised, or allow their wages to fall into arrears, or force them to work overtime without proper remuneration, or deprive them of any other consideration they have a reasonable right to expect. They steal who conceal goods from a customs inspector or misrepresent them in any way, or who make out false or misleading tax returns, or who cheat tradesmen by incurring debts that they can never repay, or who in view of impending bankruptcy turn over their property to a friend, with the understanding that it is later to be restored, or who have recourse to any so-called tricks of trade.
Except for those possessed by the spirit of honesty, those who love justice, equity, and fair dealing, those who make it their law of life to do for others as they would that others should do to them, all men will, in one way or another, defraud their “neighbour.” We may steal from others in more subtle ways, robbing them of their faith in God through doubt and criticism, through the shattering effect of a bad example when otherwise trusted, by confusing and perplexing them by statements they are not prepared to understand, by pernicious, slanderous gossip that may deprive them of their good name and character. Whatever withholds from another that which is rightfully his, or appropriates to one’s own use that which is another’s—this is stealing. To accept credit for the labors or ideas of another, to use that which is his without his permission, or to take advantage of another in any way—this too is stealing.
“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
16. False witness. This commandment may be transgressed in a public manner by untruthful witness borne in a court of law (ch. 23:1). Perjury has ever been considered a serious offense against society, and has been punished accordingly. In Athens a false witness was heavily fined. If convicted thrice of this crime, he lost his civil rights. In Rome a law of the Twelve Tables sentenced the transgressor to be hurled headlong from the Tarpeian Rock. In Egypt the penalty was amputation of the nose and ears.
This prohibition of the Decalogue is frequently violated by speaking evil of another, whereby his character is blackened, his motives misrepresented, and his reputation depreciated. All too many find it dull and tame to praise and speak well of their fellows. They find a vicious thrill in pointing out flaws in the conduct of others, judging their motives, and criticizing their endeavors. Since, unfortunately, many are ever ready and eager to listen to this supposed wisdom, the thrill is increased and the selfish, sinful ego of the detractor is enhanced. This commandment may also be broken by those who remain silent when they hear an innocent man unjustly maligned. It can be broken by a shrug of the shoulder or by an arching of the eyebrows. Whoever tampers in any way with the exact truth, in order to gain personal advantage or for any other purpose, is guilty of bearing “false witness.” The suppression of truth that might result in injury to oneself or others—this too is bearing “false witness.”
17. Not covet. The tenth commandment is supplementary to the eight, for covetousness is the root from which theft grows. In fact, the tenth commandment strikes at the roots of the other nine. It represents a decided advance beyond the morality of any other ancient code. Most codes went no further than the deed, and a few took speech into account, but none proposed to regulate the thoughts. This prohibition is fundamental to human experience in that it penetrates to the motive behind the outward act. It teaches us that God sees the heart (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Heb. 4:13), and is concerned less with the outward act than with the thought from which the action springs. It establishes the principle that the very thoughts of our hearts come under the jurisdiction of God’s law, that we are as responsible for them as for our actions. The wrong thought entertained promotes a wrong desire, which in time gives birth to a wrong action (Prov. 4:23; James 1:13-15). A man may refrain from adultery because of the social and civil penalties that follow such transgressions, yet in Heaven’s sight he may be as guilty as if he actually committed the deed (Matt. 5:28).
This basic commandment reveals the profound truth that we are not the helpless slaves of our natural desires and passions. Within us is a force, the will, which, under the control of Christ, can submerge every unlawful desire and passion (Phil. 2:13). It sums up the Decalogue by affirming that man is essentially a free moral agent.
18. They removed. More accurately, “they trembled.” The terrors of Sinai—the thunderings, the lightnings, the noise of the trumpet, the smoking mountain, the cloud and the voice speaking out of it—inspired the people with holy fear (Deut. 5:23-31).
20. Fear not. Moses pacified the people with the calm assurance that they need have no fear. It was God’s purpose to impress indelibly upon their minds a concept of His majesty and power, as a restraint from sinning. The Israelites were still dull in their comprehension of God, and consequently needed the discipline of fear until such a time as they were ready to be guided by the tender voice of love.
21. Moses drew near. As the people withdrew, probably to the doors of their tents, Moses drew near to God. In contrast to the fear of his fellow Israelites, which drove them from God, the servant of the Lord, in the boldness of faith and consecration, was attracted to the Lord. Where God was, he would be. Some, because of their sinful condition, are repelled by the divine presence; others because of their upright heart find their highest satisfaction in fellowship with their Creator (Matt. 8:34; Luke 4:42; Job 23:3; Ps. 42:1, 2). Men who have greatly transgressed, and who therefore cannot help but see God as “a revenger to execute wrath” and a “consuming fire” (Rom. 13:4; Heb. 12:29), often lose sight of the more tender attributes of God and cease to feel that He is their Father, “merciful and gracious” (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 86:15; 103:13).
22. Thus thou shalt say. With this verse begins the “book of the covenant” (ch. 24:7), which closes with ch. 23. It is a detailed enlargement upon the principles contained in the Decalogue, and is composed of various civil, social, and religious laws. From ch. 24:4, 7 we are led to believe that these laws, received by Moses at Sinai immediately after the delivery of the Ten Commandments, were put in writing and collected into a book, known as “the book of the covenant,” which was considered especially holy. Following the order of the Decalogue, the first and foremost laws are those having to do with the worship of God (vs. 23-26). Next come laws respecting the rights of persons (ch. 21:1-32), beginning with the rights of slaves and ending with the compensation to be made for injuries to persons caused by cattle. The third section has to do with rights of property (ch. 21:33 to 22:15). The remaining part of the “book” gives miscellaneous laws, some concerned with divine affairs, some with human affairs generally related to the civil organization of the state. This code contains some 70 distinct laws.
Ye have seen. This is a significant reminder that the Author of these civil laws is the same one who spoke the Ten Commandments amid the thunders of Sinai.
23. Gods of silver. This repetition of the prohibition of the second commandment is to be accounted for by the rampant idolatry of the time. How strong this idolatrous pressure was is shown by the fact that when the people thought Moses had deserted them they forthwith made themselves a golden calf (ch. 32). But “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). That they might not worship Him through material representations, He remained invisible as He spoke from the cloud on Mt. Sinai (Deut. 4:12).
24. Altar of earth. Altars were essential to the religious of antiquity. They were often made of earth, sod, or stones collected on the spot. The patriarchal altars were probably of this kind (Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:18; 22:9). It was now ordered that the same usage continue, for the reason that elaborate altars of “hewn stone” would encourage idolatry, since the images that might be engraved upon the altars would become objects of worship.
Offerings. That these are introduced here without explanation indicates that sacrifices were already known, as was indeed the case (Gen. 8:20; 22:9, 13). Not long before, Jethro had offered a sacrifice within the camp of Israel (Ex. 18:12). Although for many years the Jews had not sacrificed to God in Egypt (see PP 333), they evidently preserved the idea of doing so. It was for the express purpose of offering sacrifices that Moses demanded Pharaoh’s permission to go into the wilderness (chs. 8:25-27; 10:24, 25). The burnt offering symbolized personal consecration and self-surrender (Lev. 6:8-13; Ps. 51:16-19), and the peace offering renewed fellowship with God and expressed thankfulness (Lev. 7:11-34). Although we have passed the day of material offerings such as these, we are still invited by God to render unto Him “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5) of self-surrender (Rom. 12:1), of a “broken spirit” (Ps. 51:17, and of joy and thanksgiving (Ps. 27:6; 107:22).
Come unto thee. This is a conditional promise, to be fulfilled if the people would build proper altars and offer proper sacrifices in “all places” where God would record His name.
25. Altar of stone. In cases where, notwithstanding the divine preference of the previous verse, the people would erect a more permanent and honorable altar of stone, God required that the stones be left in their rough, natural state.
Lift up thy tool. Here again in His ardent desire, prompted by love, that His people should not be corrupted by idolatry, God forbids the elaborate carving of the altars with objects that might woo them to idolatry. There is suggested the further thought that if we presume to put something of our own into the sacrifice as a ground for acceptance, we render it in vain. Self-obtrusion, however well intended, is pollution. The altar is an expression of God’s will. Try to improve it, and it becomes instead an expression of the will of the would-be improver. The altar of self is not the altar of God. Sacrifices offered upon it may satisfy the worshiper; they cannot be pleasing to God. Let us not lose the lesson found in the experience of Cain (Gen. 4:3, 4). The pillar of Simeon Stylites did not raise the value of his prayers. Our prayers would have a better chance of reaching heaven if they came from a contrite heart at the foot of the pillar (see Isa. 66:1, 2).
26. By steps. It is not enough that the offering be made with a pure motive; it must be offered in a pure and reverent manner. Though this injunction was specially directed against the enthusiastic and passionate indecencies associated with idolatry, it illustrates an eternal truth. God requires decency and order in His worship (1 Cor. 14:40). God looks at character, but He demands also that character be matched by conduct. Proper decorum, dress, and attitude are imperative to the worship of God (Eccl. 5:1, 2).
The detailed instructions God gave Israel concerning the manner in which they were to worship Him point to the important fact that nothing is unimportant in His sight. It is often faithfulness in what may seem “least” that determines whether “much” can be entrusted to us (Luke 16:10).
1. Judgments. That is, ordinances by which justice (judgment) was to be administered. Though many of these Mosaic laws were undoubtedly old ones that had been in force for some time, all were now to be enforced with divine approval. Some provisions may have come from judicial decisions rendered by Moses in the wilderness (ch. 18:16). All of these civil laws breathed the spirit of the moral law; they reflected and applied the principles of the Ten Commandments.
These civil ordinances were based upon and dealt with social customs of the day. In some points the ordinances simply reaffirm legal practices already in effect. Some of them are similar to laws of the Code of Hammurabi (see Additional Note at close of chapter). It may seem out of keeping with our concept of the character of God that He should at least tacitly approve of such things as servitude, concubinage, and seemingly harsh forms of punishment. However, it should be remembered that in bringing the Hebrew people forth from the land of Egypt God took them as they were, with the purpose of gradually making them over into what He wanted them to be—fit representatives of Himself.
Though the new birth imparts to a man new ideals and divine power for attaining them, it does not bring instantaneous understanding of the fullness of God’s ideal for man. The understanding of, and the attaining to, that ideal are the work of a lifetime (see John 1:12; Gal. 3:13, 14; 2 Peter 3:18). God does not work a miracle to accomplish this in a moment of time, particularly when the habits in question are matters of general custom and practice. Were He to do so there could be no character development. For this reason God takes people as He finds them, and through the increasingly clearer revelation of His will leads them ever onward to loftier ideals. Thus, with some of the civil laws given at Sinai, God for the time being permitted certain customs to continue but erected a safeguard against their abuse. Final abandonment of the customs themselves came later. This principle of an increasingly clearer and more complete revelation of God’s will was enunciated by Christ (Matt. 19:7-9; John 15:22; 16:13; Acts 17:30; 1 Tim. 1:13).
2. An Hebrew servant. There was to be no such thing as permanent involuntary servitude for a Hebrew slave to a Hebrew master (Lev. 25:25-55). However, because slavery was a universal, established institution, God permitted its practice, yet at the same time sought to mitigate the evils that accompanied it. In heathen countries slaves were usually regarded more as chattels than as men. This was the more reprehensible since slavery did not necessarily imply any mental or moral fault in the slave. Slaves often proved to be more intelligent and capable than their masters. The great majority of those suffering involuntary servitude were either born in it or made so by the fortunes of war. Thus, slavery was not commonly a deserved punishment but more often an undeserved misfortune. These unfortunates had no political rights and only a few social privileges, yet often they were bound to a master who was in all points their interior. Their families might at any time be broken up and divided among other owners. They were subject to unmerciful beatings, without redress, unless perhaps in cases of serious injury. The most severe labor might be required of them, in workshops little better than prisons, in unhealthful mines, or chained to the oars of galleys for backbreaking service through endless years.
In contrast, the Lord carefully protected the rights of Hebrew slaves, and even made the lot of foreign slaves far more pleasant than was the case elsewhere. Harsh treatment was definitely prohibited (Lev. 25:43). To the master the slave was still “thy brother” (Deut. 15:12; Philemon 16). Furthermore, upon payment of the unexpired portion of the sale price the master was required to release a slave (Lev. 25:48-52). The spirit of these laws relative to slaves is the same as that stated by Paul in Col. 4:1, and expressed by him upon sending the Christian slave Onesimus back to his Christian master Philemon (Philemon 8-16).
In spirit the law of Moses is opposed to slavery. Its emphasis on the dignity of man as made in the image of God, its recognition of the descent of all mankind from one pair, contained in principle the affirmation of every human right (see Lev. 25:39-42; Lev. 26:11-13). The Israelites commonly became “slaves” to their own race through poverty (Lev. 25:35, 39), and sometimes through crime (Ex. 22:3). Children were at times sold in settlement of a debt (2 Kings 4:1-7). Later, through the fortunes of war, they were carried away as slaves to foreign lands (2 Kings 5:2, 3).
In the seventh. This does not refer to the sabbatical year (Ex. 23:11; Lev. 25:4), but to the beginning of the seventh year after the man became a slave (Deut. 15:12). When the year of jubilee arrived, a Hebrew slave was to be released, irrespective of how many years he had served Lev. 25:40). Otherwise, his servitude ended at the close of the sixth year. Not only was his master to grant him his freedom but he was obligated to furnish him with provisions from the flock, the threshing floor, and the wine press Deut. 15:12-15) in order that he might be able to begin life anew. Thus, in the first of the civil laws we find beneficent provisions whose humanitarian spirit characterizes all Mosaic legislation. No other nation of antiquity treated its slaves in this kindly fashion.
3. By himself. That is, single, unmarried.
4. Given him a wife. If on becoming a slave the man was single or a widower, and if his master gave him a female slave to wife, the master was not to lose the female slave, his property, by so doing. In this case the husband would be released from his servitude alone. Children born to a slave marriage were to be the property of the master, and were to remain as members of his household.
5. I love my master. Inasmuch as Hebrew slavery was mild and sympathetic in nature Lev. 25:39, 40, 43), it was not unusual for affection to spring up between the owner and the slave. Even among pagans there were such instances. Love might even make the conditions of servitude seem preferable to freedom. The cords of affection bind more closely than any other bonds, but they do not confine or fetter.
6. Bring him to the door. Upon the slave’s resolution not to go free, the master was to bring him before the “judges” (literally, “unto God”), who, as representatives of God, dispensed justice and served as witnesses to legal transactions such as this. Boring the ear through to the doorpost, thus attaching him physically, as it were, to the house, made him a permanent inmate of the household, marking him as such as long as he should live. The pierced ear testified to the pierced heart. The sign of slavery became the badge of love. So it was with our Lord as the suffering “servant” (Isa. 42:1; Isa. 53:10, 11), who for the love He bore His earthborn sons and daughters (Heb. 12:2, 3), was highly exalted (see Phil. 2:7-9; Heb. 5:8, 9).
For ever. From ‘olam, literally, “hidden time,” that is, time of indefinite duration. Its limits are either unknown or not specified, and must be determined by the nature of the person, thing, or circumstance to which it is applied. In the absolute sense, as applied to God, ‘olam, “everlasting” Gen. 21:33), means “eternal,” for God is eternal—without beginning or end. In a more restricted sense the resurrected saints enter into ‘olam, “everlasting life” (Dan. 12:2), which, although it has a beginning, is without end, owing to the bestowal of immortality. In a still more limited sense, ‘olam can have both a definite beginning and a definite end, either of which may be uncertain at the time of speaking. For instance, Jonah was in the belly of the fish “for ever” (Jonah 2:6) because at the time he did not know when, if ever, he would get out again. In this case “for ever” turned out to be only “three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17).
Our English words always and forever do not of themselves imply time without beginning or without end. It might, for instance, be said of a man that he always lived in the valley of his birth. The fact that eventually he died there in no way invalidates the statement that he always lived there. Similarly, at marriage, husband and wife promise to be true to each other forever, meaning so long as they both shall live. If upon the death of one the other should remarry, no one would accuse him of breaking the vow made at his first marriage. It is no more justifiable to read into the Hebrew word ‘olam more than the context implies.
As for the slave, he had already served his master for a definite, limited period of six years. Now, by his own choice, he was to begin a term of service of indefinite duration. Obviously, the agreement would terminate at least with the death of the slave, which event could of course not be predicted. This indefinite term of service is therefore appropriately described as ‘olam, which would here be more accurately rendered as “in perpetuity.”
Translators of the LXX rendered the Hebrew word ‘olam as aiōn, its Greek equivalent. What has been said of ‘olam is equally true of aiōn. The attempt to determine the length of time involved, or to assign to the person or thing described the quality of continuing endlessly, on the basis of ‘olam or aiōn, is entirely unjustified. In each instance, the duration of ‘olam or aiōn depends solely on the context in which it is used, particularly on the nature of the person or thing to which the word is applied.
7. Sell his daughter. Among ancient nations the authority of a father was generally so absolute that he could sell his own children as slaves. Herodotus tells us that the Thracians made a regular practice of selling daughters. At one time, according to Plutarch, the sale of children was common in Athens. Female slaves were usually bought to serve as concubines, or secondary wives, of their masters.
8. If she please not. If the one who purchased the female slave should refuse to make her his concubine, or secondary wife, then, literally, “he shall allow her redemption.” He was to look for someone to buy her from him and so relieve him of the marriage obligation (v. 11; cf. Lev. 25:48).
He shall have no power. Both the first purchaser and the one who “redeemed” her must be Hebrews and not foreigners. No Hebrew was ever to marry a foreigner (Deut. 7:1-3). By promising to make the girl his secondary wife and failing to do so, her first purchaser “dealt deceitfully,” that is, violated his promise.
9. Unto his son. The master might have originally secured the female slave for this purpose, or not finding her satisfactory for himself (see v. 8), he might have given her to his son. In either case she was to have the status of a daughter in the family.
10. Another wife. If, besides taking this female slave as a secondary wife for himself, the master later takes another legitimate wife, the secondary wife’s support and conjugal right were not to be denied her.
11. Go out free. The female slave was not to be treated as a mere household servant, but permitted to return to her father at once, a free woman, with the right of marrying again. Her father was not required to refund any part of the price paid for her.
12. Smiteth a man. Homicide is considered in vs. 12-14. This law is similar to the one given to Noah (Gen. 9:6). Intentional murder was in no case to be pardoned.
13. God deliver him. Literally, “if God let him fall.” This indicates only that God had permitted the dead man to fall unexpectedly into the hand of one slaying him, without the slayer’s deliberate lying “in wait” to do so.
Appoint thee a place. For a man to come unexpectedly upon his enemy and slay him was not considered murder, but manslaughter or justifiable homicide. For this there was no specific legal penalty. He was left to the simple, rude justice of established custom, the retribution of “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:12; Deut. 19:6, 12). This law did not alter the general Eastern practice of either taking life for life or giving a financial compensation. The law of Moses placed between “the avenger of blood,” or next of kin, and his victim the opportunity for the latter to reach a place of asylum. This was to be in one of the six “cities of refuge,” where he could be safe until his case was heard before the men of his own city (Num. 35:9-28; Deut. 19:1-13; Joshua 20).
Laws should always combine mercy with justice. If too severe, laws defeat their own purpose, since their very severity makes it unlikely that they will be carried out. The moral consciousness of the people revolts against them. When forgery was a capital offense in England, for instance, juries could not be secured to convict men of this crime. Legal enactments must be in accordance with the conscience of the community, or they will cease to command respect. Good men will break them, courts will hesitate to enforce obedience to them, and wise legislators will ever seek to change them to harmonize with the best moral sentiment of the community.
14. Slay him with guile. The deliberate, intentional slayer of human life was to be taken even from the altar (otherwise a place of safety) if he took refuge there, and summarily punished (1 Kings 2:28-34).
15. Smiteth his father. That is, strikes him. This implies deliberate and persistent opposition to parental authority. In this and the next two verses other capital offenses are dealt with. To smite does not mean to kill, a crime dealt with in v. 12. However, the severe penalty for smiting strongly emphasizes the dignity and authority of parents. When we reflect that parents stand in the place of God to their children until the age of moral responsibility (PP 308), that parents care for and protect them in their helpless years, and that even nature places within the minds of children an instinctive reverence for their parents, this penalty does not seem strange or excessive. Society is never secure and cannot long exist where parental authority is held in contempt. Far more is involved here than a single act of disrespect.
16. Stealeth a man. To steal, or kidnap, men to make them slaves, was an early and widespread crime (see Gen. 37:25-28). Those stolen were usually foreigners. To steal them was not considered a legal offense. If, however, the kidnaped person was a fellow countryman, punishment was severe (Deut. 24:7).
17. Curseth his father. Inasmuch as parents do stand in the place of God to their children in their earliest years (see on v. 15), the penalty for cursing them is equivalent to the penalty for blaspheming God (Lev. 24:16).
18. With a stone. The use of a stone or the fist indicates the absence of a premeditated design to kill, as would be true if a weapon had been prepared for use.
19. If he rise again. Rabbinical commentators state that the offender was put in prison until it was learned whether the wounded man would die. If he died, the assailant was tried for murder. If he recovered, a fine was imposed to cover the loss of the injured man’s time.
20. Smite his servant. In ancient times a slave was considered the absolute property of his master, and might be mistreated, abused, or even killed without legal interference. In Rome a master could deal with his servant as he pleased, selling, punishing, or slaying him. The laws of Moses, however, greatly improved the condition of native slaves and granted them certain legal rights. Although the discipline of slaves at times called for smiting them, God required that it be inflicted within reason. A “maid” would ordinarily be chastised by her mistress, or by a higher servant under the authority of the mistress. Criminals in the East have often been put to death by the bastinado. Beating with rods might prove fatal to some because of a particularly sensitive nervous system. Inasmuch as the master had paid a sum of money for the slave, if the slave lived a day or two after the beating, the owner was not held for punishment.
22. Hurt a woman. An unintentional injury, due perhaps to the woman’s interference in a quarrel involving men.
Yet no mischief. “Mischief” here denotes death (Gen. 42:4, 38; Gen. 44:29). The “judges” were to impose a fine to protect the offender from any excessive sum the woman’s husband might demand.
23. Life for life. This seemingly excessive penalty for an injury that was largely accidental and with no intention of taking life, was probably the reflection of an old law like that of the “avenger of blood” (see on v. 13). It must be remembered that there were certain provisions in these laws that Moses tolerated, such as the “bill of divorcement,” because of the “hardness” of their “hearts” (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:3-8). It is also to be kept in mind that some of these Mosaic enactments were not absolutely best from the divine viewpoint, but were imperfect (Ex. 20:25; Ps. 81:12). They were relatively the best that God’s people, at that time and in their state of moral and spiritual development, would receive and obey (see on v. 1).
24. Eye for eye. This law was also quite general among ancient nations. Solon introduced this law, in part, into the code of Athens, and in Rome it was included in the Twelve Tables. Numerous laws of a similar nature were included in the ancient Code of Hammurabi, a king of Babylon who lived about the time of Abraham (see Additional Note at close of chapter).
If the literal interpretation of this law were insisted upon in our Lord’s day (see Matt. 5:38-42), it must have been by the Sadducees, for they refused to read into the law a spiritual interpretation. No good would have been served by requiring, literally, “eye for eye.” It would have meant great loss to the individual doing the injury, without bringing the least gain to the one injured. Persistent requirement of compensation is quite different from a passionate desire for revenge.
26. Smite the eye. This verse and the next set forth the law pertaining to assaults upon slaves. The “eye” and “tooth” are specially mentioned because the former is considered our most precious physical organ, and the loss of the latter as that which is of least consequence. The general law of retaliation did not take in slaves. Ordinary blows given a slave did not carry with them any more thought of compensation than those given a child. However, permanent harm to an organ or the loss of a member afforded the slave the right of complaint and compensation. Revenge in kind was impossible because it would have put the slave in the position of retaliating against his master; hence compulsory compensation was provided. The principle was upheld that any permanent physical loss gave to the slave the right of freedom, a privilege which must have acted as an effective deterrent to brutality on the part of the master.
28. If an ox gore. To establish as firmly as possible the principle of the sacredness of human life, Moses takes up in vs. 28-32 injuries caused by domestic animals. Echoing the declaration already made to Noah (Gen. 9:5), the ox must be killed, but the owner is “clear” (RSV). Not being killed in the manner required, the animal might not be eaten. Furthermore, the animal was under a curse. According to rabbinical expositors it was not even lawful to sell the carcass to the Gentiles. By being “stoned” to death, the ox suffered the same penalty that would have been imposed upon a human murderer.
29. If the ox were wont. If the owner knew the animal to be dangerous and to require watching, and yet carelessly neglected to watch it properly, he was held guilty, as being accessory to the homicide and therefore deserving of death. The sound principle is established that a man is responsible for all foreseeable consequences of his actions.
30. Ransom of his life. Since it was unlikely that a man would be put to death for the offense of an animal, no matter what the neglect, provision is made for paying “a sum of money” as a fine, the amount being proportionate to the value of the life taken.
32. Push a manservant. That is, “gore a manservant.” Even then the ox was to be killed, to further strengthen the concept of the sanctity of human life. Instead of a varying “ransom,” or fine, the average price of a slave, 30 shekels of silver, was in all cases to be paid to the slave’s master in compensation for his loss. Thirty shekels of silver would be equivalent to approximately $8.75 today (see on Gen. 20:16).
33. Open a pit. Literally, “leaves a pit open” (RSV). The remainder of the chapter deals with injuries to property, which among the Hebrews consisted largely of cattle and flocks. Pits, or cisterns, were necessary in Palestine for the storage of water. They were usually covered by a flat stone. It was the duty of the one drawing water to re-cover the cistern after taking water from it.
Dig a pit. In the unfenced fields of Palestine it was always possible that a neighbor’s animal might go astray and suffer injury because of another’s negligence. Unable to extricate itself, an animal falling into a pit might drown. The owner of the cistern was to make good the loss of the animal and receive the carcass.
35. Sell the live ox. The two owners concerned were to divide between them the value of both the living and the dead ox, and share equally in the loss. If, however, one of the animals was known to be vicious, the owner who suffered the loss was to receive full compensation but lose his share of the carcass. God strictly condemns carelessness and neglect. Whatever we do we are to do well (Eccl. 9:10; Jer. 48:10).
1. Steal an ox. Verses 1-15 continue the laws relating to the rights of property. The first section, vs. 1-5, has to do with theft. The general principle is set forth that theft is to be punished, if possible, by a fine. In the wilderness the chief property the Israelites possessed was cattle. Since it took more boldness for a thief to carry off an ox than a sheep, the crime bore a heavier penalty.
And kill it. This was considered worse than ordinary stealing, which carried the penalty of a double restoration (see v. 4), for it indicated persistence in wrongdoing. Therefore the offender was to pay more as shown here.
2. Breaking up. Rather, “breaking in,” that is, forcible entry into a house. Because the ordinary way of “breaking in” to a house seems to have been through a breach in the wall, the literal meaning of the verb is “digging in.”
No blood. Margin, “bloodguiltiness,” meaning that the avenger of blood was not permitted to pursue the slayer (Num. 35:27). This principle, which later had the sanction of Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, the Roman law, and the law of England, rests upon the assumption that anyone forcibly entering a house at night has a murderous intent, or at least the intent to commit murder if occasion should arise.
3. Sun be risen. If this entry be attempted after daybreak, it is charitably assumed that the thief did not intend murder. Therefore the slayer of the thief is held guilty of “blood” and may be slain by the next of kin. All the requirements of justice were thought to be served by the thief’s being compelled to make restitution. Blood was not to be shed needlessly; so the law punished the theft but protected the thief’s life.
Full restitution. The thief who enters a house by day shall be punished like other thieves, by being compelled to “restore double.” If he has “nothing,” or rather “not enough” to make the restitution demanded, he is then to be “sold” for his theft, that is, pay for it by labor. This double restitution served as a sort of retaliation, for it caused the thief to lose the very amount he had expected to gain.
5. To be eaten. Wantonly damaging what belongs to another is almost as bad as stealing. Therefore if a man caused a field “to be eaten” or browsed upon, he was to pay to the offended an equal amount from his own best produce.
6. If fire break out. It is customary in the East, as elsewhere, to burn the grass or weeds on a farm at certain seasons of the year. Through carelessness the fire might spread and either damage or destroy a neighbor’s crops. Of course, restitution was to be made, but not double, for the damage was not due to a deliberate act such as permitting one’s cattle to graze in another man’s field.
7. Stuff. That is, “goods,” or any movable article. Verses 7-13 record the law concerning deposits. Leaving property to the care of another was not unusual in ancient times, where investments were difficult and bankers were few. Those about to travel, especially merchants, did so. This required guarding the goods during the period of absence.
8. Unto the judges. Literally, “unto God.” The LXX rendering clarifies the meaning thus: “But if the thief be not found, the master of the house shall come forward before God, and shall swear that surely he has not wrought wickedly in regard of any part of his neighbour’s deposit.”
9. All manner of trespass. More accurately, “for every breach of trust” (RSV). For any object the caretaker could not account for, he was to appear, literally, “before God” (see on ch. 21:6), together with his accuser, and clear himself if he could (see ch. 18:21, 22).
Which another challengeth. Meaning, “which the depositor declares to be his.”
10. No man seeing it. The deposited animal might “die” naturally, be hurt by a wild beast or by a fall, or be “driven away” by thieves, without anyone’s knowing it at the time. If the caretaker declared on oath his ignorance of the loss, no compensation was allowed the owner.
12. If it be stolen. Restitution was in this case to be paid, on the presumption that with proper care the theft could have been avoided.
13. Torn in pieces. The trustee was required to produce evidence that this was actually so if he was to be relieved of blame.
14. If a man borrow. Borrowing is appropriately classified with depositing, for in both cases the property of one man is committed to the hands of another. But because in the former case the borrower is benefited, whereas in the latter case the depositor receives the benefit, the obligation is different. The borrower must take all the risks unless the owner of the borrowed property is with the object borrowed. This must have put a strong check on borrowing.
15. Be with it. This implies that the owner was not merely present but in charge of it, or so near he could have prevented the damage. Borrowers should remember that if they fail to restore what they have borrowed: (1) They injure themselves, for reputation and self-respect both suffer. (2) They fail in their duty to the lender, since they are under special obligation to him. (3) They wrong mankind in general, since their carelessness restrains men from lending to others what may be urgently needed. (4) They fail in their duty to God, who regards as “wicked” those who borrow but restore not (Ps. 37:21).
An hired thing. Where an amount was paid for the privilege of using an animal or article, it was hired rather than borrowed. In that case the owner was considered to have reckoned on the risk of loss or damage in fixing the amount of the hire, and so was not entitled to any compensation.
16. If a man entice. The remainder of the “book of the covenant” is made up of miscellaneous laws. It will be noticed that some are severe and others tender, again illustrating the justice and mercy of God (see Ps. 85:10; 89:14). God is as merciful toward the weak and helpless saint as He is severe toward the bold and stubborn sinner. Verses 16 and 17 are concerned with seduction. In the East a man commonly pays money, a dowry, to the parents of the maiden he intends to marry. A seducer was required to comply with this custom. The dowry price was 50 shekels of silver (Deut. 22:29), or about $14.57.
18. Witch. More accurately, “sorceress” (KJV, margin). A sorcerer was one who claimed supernatural knowledge or power, which he used either to influence the gods or to cast magic spells. The fact that women are designated rather than men suggests that the female sex was more addicted to this crime.
20. He that sacrificeth. Inasmuch as the offering of a sacrifice was then the chief act of worship, to do so to a false god was to renounce the Lord. Under a secular government this act would not be an offense, but one left instead to the final judgment of God; under the theocracy of Israel it was treason, and thus punishable with death.
21. Neither vex a stranger. This precept against the oppression of foreigners is most significant, since it is unlikely that such a provision was ever made in the laws of other ancient countries. While elsewhere foreigners might be harassed, the Mosaic law forbade the Hebrews to treat strangers thus (Ex. 23:9; Lev. 19:33). Instead, they were to “love” strangers (Lev. 19:34). Their own experience as “strangers in the land of Egypt” was to be a constant reminder that they were to deal kindly with these foreigners (Deut. 10:19). This kindness to foreigners was also to be given in the hope that they might be made proselytes (see Acts 13:43). Although the Hebrews were to remain separate from other nations in matters of religion, they were not to isolate themselves to the extent that they would fail to show kindness to a stranger.
22. Not afflict any widow. As with the stranger it is natural to protect the widow and orphan. Like him, they are weak and defenseless, and thus special objects of divine care. The word “afflict” includes all kinds of mistreatment. Later enactments did much to ameliorate the sad lot of widows (Ex. 23:11; Lev. 19:9, 10; Deut. 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19-21; 26:12, 13). Though in general the Israelites obeyed this injunction, there were times when widows and orphans suffered severe oppression (Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 7:5-7; 22:3; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 23:14). We are reminded of Jesus’ solicitude for His widowed mother (John 19:26, 27), of the care given widows in the early church (Acts 6:1; 1 Tim. 5:3-9, 16), and that James included interest in and the care of orphans and widows in “pure religion” (James 1:27). It is the first principle of Christian ethics that to neglect to do well is to do ill.
24. I will kill you. Neglect of the poor and the widows contributed to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of its inhabitants (Jer. 22:3-5).
25. Usury. This word now generally implies an exorbitant rate of interest. In the days of Moses the word thus translated meant any amount of interest, great or small. The amount of interest a creditor might charge was not then regulated by law, and it was therefore to be expected that conscienceless creditors would deal heartlessly with men who found themselves in difficult circumstances. The Mosaic law prohibiting usury was concerned exclusively with the matter of taking advantage of a brother who was “waxen poor,” that is, in financial straits (see Lev. 25:25, 35, 39, 47; PP 533). Under such circumstances a “poor” man might pawn his property (Lev. 25:35-38), secure a loan if possible (Lev. 25:35-37), or sell himself to his creditor for a limited period of time (Lev. 25:39-41). Furthermore, if able to do so, the poor man’s “brother” was required to make the necessary loan, and that without interest (Deut. 15:7-11). He might under no circumstances take advantage of his poor “brother” by charging him any amount of interest whatever. Mosaic law scrupulously protected the rights of the poor and provided for their welfare.
In the time of Moses business was not transacted as it is today. Generally speaking, a man relied upon his own resources in the transaction of business, and there was little borrowing and lending as we know it today. For practical purposes, none but a “brother” who had “waxen poor” ever borrowed money. It would seem therefore that far from condemning ordinary business transactions involving the lending and borrowing of money, the laws of Moses are not even concerned with them. It appears that Christ approved the principle of profit, including interest on loans, in normal business transactions (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23).
The principle inherent in Moses’ law on “usury,” of not taking advantage of someone beset by adverse circumstances, remains valid in our day. One man should never exact more than is just from another, whether “poor” or wealthy. It is the spirit of avarice, extortion, sharp practice, and the passion for gain, even at the disadvantage of others, that is condemned (see PK 648-652). We are to be sympathetic to the needs of others, and never to turn a deaf ear to their cry or to take advantage of them when they are confronted with difficulties.
26. Take thy neighbour’s raiment. To lend on pledge, as do modern pawnbrokers, was not forbidden by Hebrew law. There were, however, certain articles of primary importance on which pledges could not be taken, such as a hand mill for grinding flour or either of its millstones (Deut. 24:6). In Nehemiah’s time we read of borrowing upon pledge being practiced with evil results (see Neh. 5).
By that the sun goeth down. That is, “before the sun goes down” (RSV). The reason is stated in the next verse. If the garment was to be given back immediately, and permanently, it would not have been desirable to take it in pledge at all. Perhaps the garment was deposited during the day and returned to the owner at night.
28. The gods. The word ’elohim is sometimes translated “judges” (chs. 21:6; 22:8, 9), often as “gods” (ch. 20:3, 23; etc.), but more commonly as “God” (ch. 20:1, 2, 5, 7; etc.). It is not certain whether ’elohim should be rendered “judges”—God’s representatives for administering justice—as in the KJV margin, or as “God.” The fact that the Jews held pagan gods, ’elohim, in contempt would seem to preclude the possibility that “gods” are meant here. The rendering, “You shall not revile God” (RSV), is therefore preferable (see Lev. 24:15, 16).
Nor curse the ruler. More accurately, “nor curse a ruler among thy people.” “Rulers” were generally heads of families (Num. 3:24, 30, 35) and tribes (Num. 7:10, 18, 24). Later the word was used of kings (1 Kings 11:34; Eze. 12:10; 45:7). It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state (Rom. 13:1-7; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-18).
29. The first. Literally, “the fullness.” The first-born of man and beast, and the first of all the produce of the land, whether wine, oil, grain, or fruit, were required of the people. The first-born son was to be redeemed by a money payment (Ex. 13:13; Num. 3:46-48), but the rest were to be offered in sacrifice. That there would be reluctance in obeying this law by putting off the offering is indicated in the charge, “Thou shalt not delay.”
30. Seven days. This period of time would give the dam the natural relief that came from suckling its young. There is some analogy between this provision and the law of circumcision (Gen. 17:9-12). Birth was regarded as bringing ceremonial uncleanness, and therefore it was not until after the days specified that the offering would be acceptable to God.
31. Holy men. To secure this consecration (Ex. 19:6; Lev. 11:44, 45) there were various laws designed to preserve the Israelites a spiritual people. They were not to eat the flesh of a “torn” animal because the blood, which is the “life” (Lev. 17:14), could not be properly drained from the animal, which was therefore unclean. Furthermore, the carnivorous beast that tore it was also unclean, and would by contact pass on its uncleanness to the other.
To the dogs. It is probable that this provision did not rule out the selling or giving of the rejected animal to an alien (see Deut. 14:21), but indicated another means whereby the flesh could be disposed of. Dogs were unclean and might therefore feed on anything. They were, in fact, scavengers (2 Kings 9:35, 36).
1. A false report. This is an expansion of the ninth commandment, which forbids calumny and slander. The last half of the verse prohibits joining with others in spreading this mischief. Though the word “witness” implies that the law is concerned primarily with conduct in court, it is not confined to that.
2. Not follow a multitude. Omitting the word “do” in this first clause, which is not in the original Hebrew, this prohibition covers not only evil in deed but also in word and thought. Remembering the words of Jesus, we are not to take the manner of life of the many as our example (Matt. 7:13, 14). One of the chief dangers facing professed Christians is that of pliant willingness to follow the crowd, notwithstanding the Scriptural admonition against such a tendency.
To decline. That is, to turn aside. A better translation of the last half of this verse would be: “Neither shalt thou bear witness in a case by going aside after a multitude to pervert justice.” In connection with the next verse this may be taken as referring to one of the judges, who is not to follow the other judges in deciding a case but to have his own opinion and hold to it.
3. Countenance a poor man. That is, to be partial to him. This seems surprising, considering the many precepts that favor the poor. However, it simply supports impartial justice, which must regard neither the rich nor the poor. To lean either way would be a perversion of justice (Lev. 19:15).
4. Thine enemy’s ox. This refers to a private enemy, not to a public one as in Deut. 23:3-6. It anticipates the true spirit of Christianity as laid down by Christ in His rebuke of the rabbinical distortions of the Mosaic law (Matt. 23:4).
5. Wouldest forbear to help. The overburdened ass of an enemy must not be left without offering to help the enemy get the animal back on its feet, so it may continue on its way. This joint merciful participation would bring the two men into friendly contact and thus invite a possible reconciliation.
6. Not wrest the judgment. While v. 3 warns against favoring the poor, out of compassion for them, this prohibits discriminating against the poor because of his poverty, a far more common wrong. Prejudice is to be avoided in order that strict justice may be done. A court of law is not the place for sentiment.
7. Slay thou not. Countenancing a false accusation against an “innocent and righteous” man might cause his death, and so draw the vengeance of Him who does “not justify the wicked.”
8. Take no gift. The acceptance of a bribe from one of the parties in a suit, and the shaping of justice accordingly, has ever been one of the most common and reprehensible sins of judges in the East. Bribery defeats the whole purpose for which the administration of justice exists, for its weight in the scales of justice tips them the wrong way. For this reason it has generally carried the death penalty. While the Mosaic code fixes no penalty for this evil (Deut. 16:18-20), Josephus affirms that the Jews put the offender to death (Against Apion ii. 28). Nevertheless, whatever the penalty was it must have been ignored (1 Sam. 8:3; Ps. 26:10; Prov. 17:23; Isa. 1:23; Micah 3:9-11).
9. Not oppress a stranger. This repeats the injunction of ch. 22:21, and probably applies to courts of justice. The word “heart” denotes the mind, the feelings. In other words, sympathy should be extended to the “stranger.”
11. The seventh year. Though other nations had their days of rest at regular or irregular intervals, entire years of rest were observed by the Israelites. This may have exposed them to the rebuke of idleness by other nations. Since agriculture was primitive, crop rotation unknown, and artificial fertilizers were not used, it is probable that no financial loss resulted from the program. However, the desire for gain made the enforcement of the provision difficult. The “seventy years” captivity was intended to make up for the failure to observe the sabbatical years (2 Chron. 36:17-21).
The primary purpose of the law as here stated was to provide for the poor (see Lev. 25:1-7). What the land produced of itself without cultivation belonged to all as a common possession, even to the “beasts of the field.” It was no doubt intended also that this sabbatical year should be one of increased religious observance, in which the solemn reading of the law at the Feast of Tabernacles in “the year of release” (Deut. 31:10, 11) played a part. This reading was preceded by a period of religious preparation (Neh. 8). This sabbatical year must have been a solemn season, one which led to self-examination, the formation of holy habits, and brought spiritual uplift to the people. Since grain, wine, and oil were the important products of Palestine, it is apparent that the whole land was to rest.
12. The seventh day. To bring out further its merciful character, the fourth commandment is here repeated. Most of the foreign population of the Holy Land were engaged in hard labor (see 2 Chron. 2:17, 18), a fact that explains why the “stranger” is particularly mentioned here.
13. The name of other gods. As a protection against idolatry, God’s people were not even to mention the names of heathen deities. This prohibition was based on the principle that familiarity with evil often leads to participation in it. Had this injunction been carried out, the danger of idolatry would have been wholly removed. It is significant that Moses himself rarely spoke the names of heathen gods. Later Bible writers and prophets were compelled to do so either as a record of the actual history of Israel or by way of denouncing idolatry. Modern advertisers know the value of the repetition of trade names, and deliberately plan to keep the name of their product before the public in one way or another. It would be well for everyone who desires to keep himself pure and holy to remember that expression deepens impression.
14. Three times. Verses 14-17 record the law of sacred festivals. All the ancient heathen religions had annual festive seasons commemorating the supposed beneficence of their gods. Assembling together in large gatherings, the people inspired and cheered one another to greater devotion and heartier thanksgiving than at other times. Such festivals were frequent in Egypt and held an important place in religious life.
Abraham’s family probably celebrated occasions of this kind in Mesopotamia, and the Lord now sanctioned these three feasts as a stimulus to piety. These feasts were: (1) to be at once agricultural and historical, connected with the course of the seasons and also with great events in the life of the nation; (2) to be observed only at one place, where the tabernacle was situated; (3) to be attended by the entire male population (v. 17; see on Lev. 23:2).
15. The feast of unleavened bread. This early spring festival came at the beginning of the barley harvest in the month Abib (Nisan), began with the Passover and a holy convocation, lasted seven days, and closed with another holy convocation (Lev. 23:5-8). Unleavened bread was eaten during these seven days, in commemoration of the hasty exodus from Egypt (Ex. 12:33, 34, 39). Leaven was a symbol of sin and error (Matt. 16:6, 11, 12; 1 Cor. 5:6-8). Unleavened bread was representative of the freedom from sin of Him who is the bread of life (John 6:35, 48, 51). A sheaf of new barley, the first fruits of the harvest, was offered as a wave offering before the Lord (Lev. 23:9-14). “The time appointed” was the 15th day of the first month, Nisan (Lev. 23:6). This feast, which began with the Passover, was a type of the deliverance of sinners from sin through the death of Christ. When the Saviour offered Himself on Calvary the significance of the Passover ceased, for it looked forward to Him (1 Cor. 5:7). The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was instituted as a memorial of the same event (Luke 22:14-20).
None shall appear before me empty. Those who attended the feast were to present a freewill offering to the Lord. An Oriental never came before his superior without a gift. No less was expected of an Israelite when he approached Jehovah, the King of the theocracy.
16. The feast of harvest. Fifty days were to be numbered from the day of the barley sheaf was offered (Lev. 23:15-21). The 50th day was called “the feast of weeks,” because seven full weeks separated it from the Passover. In NT times it was called Pentecost, from a Greek word meaning “fiftieth.” This feast was celebrated late in our month of May or early in June, the time of the spring harvest. To express gratitude for the grain, two loaves baked with leaven were presented before God (Lev. 23:17). It was a joyful occasion (Deut. 16:9-11). Jewish tradition connected the feast with the giving of the law, which occurred about 50 days after the departure from Egypt (see Ex. 19:1-16), and accordingly one purpose of Pentecost was to commemorate the giving of the law. For the Christians of apostolic times it commemorated also the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the infant church gathered in the first fruits of the gospel (Acts 2:1-12, 41).
The firstfruits of thy labours. Literally, “of the first fruits of your labor” (RSV). The expression is in apposition with “harvest,” not with “feast.”
The feast of ingathering. Elsewhere this is commonly called “the feast of tabernacles,” because the people were to make booths for themselves in which to dwell during the feast (Lev. 23:33-36; Deut. 16:13-15; 31:10; John 7:2). This eight-day festival commenced on the 15th of Tishri, which came late in October or in early November. The olives had been harvested and the vintage completed. A holy convocation marked its opening and close. It was a season of gladness and thanksgiving for the final gathering in of the autumn harvest, and commemorated the safe passage of the Israelites from Egypt to Palestine. Furthermore, they had observed the great Day of Atonement but a few days previously, and received the assurance that their sins would be remembered no more. They were at peace with God. Well might they now acknowledge His goodness and praise Him for His mercy. The feast of Tabernacles not only pointed back to the wilderness sojourn, but, like the feast of harvest, it anticipated the ingathering of the harvest of the earth (PP 540, 541). During the captivity this feast was apparently neglected, but in Nehemiah’s time it was again observed with much joy (Neh. 8:13-18).
In the end of the year. That is, at the end of the agricultural and civil year, after the harvest had been gathered in.
17. Three times in the year. Considering the fact that Palestine is a small country, less than 145 mi. long by 75 mi. wide, attendance at these feasts was not a burden. Furthermore, such festive occasions appealed to the people, for they were an important means of spreading information and offered almost the only opportunity for relatives and friends to see one another. The Israelites looked forward to these occasions with joyous anticipation. They exerted an important unifying influence and were thus a vitally important part of national life, tending as they did to weld the people together in the knowledge and service of God. While “all thy males” were required to attend, other members of the family were free to do so if they wished (1 Sam. 1:1-23; Luke 2:41-45).
18. The blood of my sacrifice. This was the Passover lamb, inasmuch as the forbidding of “leavened bread” and of any part of the lamb remaining “until the morning” have to do with this offering only (Ex. 12:1-11; Deut. 16:1-5). The Passover lamb was the most important of all offerings in that it typified the sacrifice of Christ, the true Paschal Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). God could most appropriately call it “my sacrifice.”
19. The first of the firstfruits. This means either “the best” of the first fruits (Num. 18:12) or the “first ripe” fruits (Num. 18:13). As these first fruits of the harvest of the “land” were brought to God, so Christ presented Himself to the Father as the first fruits of the resurrection harvest (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:20-23).
The house of the Lord. This phrase is synonymous with the expression, “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there” (Deut. 26:2; 12:5, 11, 14; 16:16), and refers to the sanctuary and later the Temple.
Not seethe a kid. Texts unearthed at Ras Shamra, the ancient Ugarit, a Syrian coastal city opposite the island of Cyprus, reveal the fact that boiling sacrificial kids in their mother’s milk was a ritual practice of the Canaanites. It was probably to avoid this heathen rite that God forbade His people to do so.
20. I send an Angel. In these closing verses of “the book of the covenant” (vs. 10-31) we find the promises God would fulfill should the people observe its requirements. God ever encourages us with “the recompence of the reward” (Heb. 11:26). These promises were conditional, for God can bless His people only if they obey Him. The “Angel” plainly refers to “the messenger [Angel] of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1), that is, to Christ (PP 252, 311). The word mal’ak, “angel,” means “messenger,” and is translated as often one way as the other. Christ was ever the Messenger of God to Israel (PP 366), and as such conveyed to them a knowledge of the character, will, and mercy of God (Gen. 22:1, 10-12; Ex. 32:34; Isa. 63:7-9; Mal. 3:1; John 8:56-58; 1 Tim. 2:5).
In the way. Not alone to guide them geographically (Ex. 23:23; 32:34), but spiritually as well, in the paths of righteousness (Ex. 33:9; Deut. 31:15).
Into the place. An allusion to Palestine, and indirectly to the home of the saved, of which that land was a type (see John 14:1-3).
21. He will not pardon. This does not mean that God will not actually pardon, for God’s love ensures that He will (Ps. 32:5; 103:10-12; Isa. 63:7-9; 1 John 1:9); but it does express with typical Eastern emphasis the sovereign justice and holiness of God (see Ex. 34:7).
My name is in him. Here the first person of the Godhead, the Father, speaks of the second person of the Godhead, His Son. This statement implies that the “Angel” bearing God’s name is coequal with God Himself (see John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:13-19; Heb. 1:8).
23. Amorites. All but one of the “seven nations” of Canaan proper, the Girgashites, are here mentioned (Deut. 7:1; Joshua 3:10; 24:11). To “cut them off” means to destroy them as nations, not as individuals, for such might yet be won as proselytes to the faith of Israel (2 Sam. 23:39; 24:18-25; 2 Chron. 8:7-9).
24. Not bow down. It must be remembered that the idolatrous worship of these heathen peoples was licentious and debasing in the extreme. The ceremonies of some heathen deities were defiled by human sacrifices and polluted by prostitution. The iniquity of these nations was now full (see Gen. 15:16). It is not to be wondered at that they were due to feel the full measure of divine wrath (see on Gen. 15:16).
Their images. Literally, “their pillars” (see on Gen. 28:18).
25. Take sickness away. Healthful living in itself goes far to protect one from sickness of mind and soul as well as of body. Conversely, godliness promotes physical well-being (see DA 827).
26. There shall nothing cast. This could be the result of a special interposition of divine favor and providential care, as well as of healthful living. Not only would there be no premature births, but, as the last clause implies, premature death would also be unknown.
27. Send my fear. For the fulfillment of this promise see Num. 22:3; Joshua 2:9, 11; 9:24. The enemies of the Israelites did turn their backs in defeat (Num. 21:3, 24, 35; Joshua 8:20-24; 10:10, 11). Had Israel gone on to full obedience God would have thoroughly broken the power of the Canaanite nations.
28. Hornets. Some have taken this as a reference to literal hornets, others as a figurative reference to the Egyptians, who repeatedly invaded Palestine during the time of Joshua and the judges, or to the fear felt by the Canaanites (Joshua 2:9; see Additional Note to Joshua 6; see on Joshua 24:12).
29. In one year. While men are impatient, God is long-suffering and wonderfully forbearing (2 Peter 3:9). The Canaanite nations would not be driven out all at once, lest (1) the land should become desolate, there not being enough people to care for it; (2) the beasts of the field should multiply and so become a danger. When the northern Hebrew kingdom of Israel was depopulated by the removal of the ten tribes into captivity, there was a marked increase of lions that preyed upon the scanty remnant (2 Kings 17:24, 25). In many districts of France wolves increased following the Franco-Prussian War. Another reason why the nations were not driven out immediately was that God desired to “prove” Israel to see whether they would obey Him (Judges 2:21-23).
31. Set thy bounds. These boundaries were not reached until 400 years later, under David and Solomon (1 Kings 4:21, 24; 2 Chron. 9:26). Moses here confirms God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:18). Inasmuch as Solomon was “a man of rest” (1 Chron. 22:9), the work of empire building must have been accomplished by David (2 Sam. 8:3-15; 10:6-19; 1 Kings 5:3; 1 Chron. 22:8).
The river. That is, the Euphrates, pre-eminently “the river” of OT times (see Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7).
Drive them out. Many of the Canaanites were no doubt forced northward, and may have united with the Hittite kingdom, which for many centuries formidably opposed the Egyptian and Assyrian empires.
32. No covenant. The “book of the covenant” closes as it begins, with a solemn charge against idolatry (ch. 20:23). The subsequent history of Israel shows how needful this repeated warning was, and how necessary God’s deep concern for them to avoid this error. Tragically, the warning was of no avail (2 Kings 17:7-18). Inasmuch as the usual treaties of peace at that time contained an acknowledgment of the gods of either nation, and words honoring these gods, covenants with heathen peoples would include recognition of their gods.
33. Not dwell. Proselytes to the religion of Israel were, of course, not included in this injunction, nor were enslaved heathen (see Joshua 9:27).
1. Nadab, and Abihu. As the two eldest sons of Aaron (ch. 6:23), Nadab and Abihu were their father’s natural successors to the priesthood. However, their later sin of offering “strange fire” prevented this (Lev. 10:1, 2).
Seventy of the elders. These were usually, though not necessarily, older men. In this connection the term designates those of a certain official rank and position among their brethren, the heads of houses (Ex. 6:14, 25; 12:21). They represented the people as a whole, while Nadab and Abihu represented the future priesthood (ch. 28:1). These leaders also represented the 12 tribes of Israel. All were to ascend the mount to a certain point, but Moses alone was to go to the top. Thus the elders were to “worship … afar off.”
3. Told the people. Upon his return to camp Moses announced the legislation recorded in chs. 20:22 to 23:33. The Decalogue was uttered by God Himself, but the “judgments” were recited to the people by Moses.
4. And Moses wrote. The Spirit of truth that inspired all the prophets (see John 14:26; Heb. 1:1; 2 Peter 1:20, 21) brought to his remembrance all the injunctions God had given him. Moses then erected an altar, for without a sacrifice no covenant would be held binding.
5. He sent young men. Perhaps as the “firstborn” (see ch. 22:29) these young men served as priests until the Levitical priesthood was instituted (ch. 28:1; PP 350). These young men were also probably selected because of their skill in handling struggling animals. The “burnt offerings” symbolized personal consecration and self-surrender (Ps. 51:16-19; see also on Lev. 1:2-4). The “peace offerings” stood for renewed fellowship with God and thankfulness to Him (see on Lev. 3:1).
6. Half of the blood. Because blood symbolized the life of the victim (Lev. 17:14) it was an essential part of every sacrifice, and the sprinkling of it upon the altar was a focal point of the usual sacrificial ritual (Lev. 1:5; 3:8). Now, half of the blood was apportioned to the people and half to God, the blood sprinkled on the altar binding God, in symbol, and that sprinkled on the people binding them to the terms of the covenant (Heb. 9:18-22; see also on Gen. 15:9-13, 17).
7. The book of the covenant. In the Scripture narrative this is the first “book” mentioned as being written. The rest of the “law” was based upon it, and for its further clarification Moses later wrote Deuteronomy. After reading the book “in the audience,” literally “in the ears,” of the people, they again responded as in v. 3, adding significantly the words “and be obedient.” The excitement of the occasion caused the people sincerely, no doubt, to agree to keep God’s laws. Their spirit was willing indeed, but their flesh was weak (see Matt. 26:41). Performance ever lags far behind promise. The people evidently had but little knowledge of their own hearts; they had not learned to distrust themselves. They had, as well, little perception of the spiritual requirements of the law.
It must be remembered that the law had not in itself the power to save, but on the contrary could only condemn. It could neither justify nor sanctify. It made all men sinners and left them under condemnation (Rom. 3:9, 10). It could not restrain either inward or outward corruption, nor could it check sin. It provided commandments written on stone and “judgments” written in a book, but it had no power to write them on the fleshly tables of the heart (Rom. 8:1-4; 2 Cor. 3). The new covenant succeeds because it is fulfilled, not in our own poor human strength, but in the power of faith in the indwelling Christ (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-12; 10:14-16).
8. Moses took the blood. It is improbable that Moses sprinkled the blood on each individual of that vast multitude; he must have done so upon the leaders as their representatives. The “elders” and other chief men of each tribe and family were perhaps included in this part of the ceremony.
Behold the blood. Among the nations of antiquity it was a common custom to seal a covenant with blood (see on Gen. 15:9-13, 17). Sometimes the blood was that of a victim, the two parties solemnly affirming that if they broke the covenant, the victim’s fate would be theirs. Sometimes, among the heathen, it was the blood of the two parties themselves, each of whom drank of the other’s blood and thereby contracted a blood relationship. This was presumed to make the breaking of the covenant of life-and-death matter. Moses chose simply to sprinkle the blood upon the altar and the people (see on v. 6), thus bringing the contracting parties together in solemn covenant union. Applied to the people, the blood also symbolized cleansing from sin and consecration to divine service. Thereafter, God claimed them as His special property; they were His (Isa. 43:1). Made free from sin, we too become servants of God (Rom. 6:22; 1 Peter 2:9, 10).
9. Then went up Moses. After the ratification of the covenant Moses, Aaron, his sons, and the elders complied with God’s call to “come up” (v. 1). The group ascended part way, certainly not to the summit, which Moses alone had the privilege of visiting (vs. 2, 12). The others were to worship “afar off.”
10. And they saw. It is clear here that God is not an impersonal force, but a real person (see also Ex. 33:17-23; 34:5-7; Num. 12:6-8; Isa. 6:1-6; Eze. 1:26-28).
The body of heaven. That is, “clear as the sky itself.” We might think that this exalted honor and privilege would have established these men in enduring faith and obedience toward God. But the tragic story records that Aaron surrendered to the people’s impulsive demand for a golden calf (see Ex. 32:1-6) and that Nadab and Abihu were slain for offering “strange fire” (Num. 3:1-4). An exalted religious experience one day is no protection for the next (Matt. 14:28-33; Luke 13:25-27; 1 Cor. 10:11, 12).
11. Upon the nobles. God did not smite these men with death, pestilence, or blindness, though their unholiness gave them no reason to think they might see God and live (see Gen. 32:30; Ex. 33:20; Judges 6:22, 23; etc.). It was the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead, whose glory they saw upon this occasion (PP 312, 366). A sacrificial meal generally followed a sacrificial offering, and of this the elders perhaps now partook, as near to the divine presence as they might approach. After this experience the entire group returned to the camp.
12. Come up to me. The remainder of the chapter narrates Moses’ 40 days of communion with God. Having given the Ten Commandments and the laws and “judgments” of the “book of the covenant,” God now proceeded to give instructions concerning the erection of the sanctuary, which was to be His dwelling place among the children of Israel (ch. 25:8). If man is left to himself to determine the tangible, material features of religious worship, he may easily err. As a safeguard, a “pattern” was shown Moses of all that was to enter into their worship (Ex. 25:9; Heb. 8:5), including exact details as to the material, size, shape, and construction of each object. These directions are recorded in Ex. 25 to 31. In order that Moses might have ample time to understand and remember the detailed instructions to be given him, he was to “be there,” that is, on “the mount,” for 40 days.
14. Tarry ye. On this occasion Moses was attended by Joshua, who had been instrumental in defeating the Amalekites (ch. 17:8-13). Knowing that he would be absent for some time, Moses felt it necessary to give certain directions to the elders concerning the conduct of affairs during his absence. They were to remain at the foot of Sinai until his return and look to Aaron and Hur, as Moses’ representatives, for counsel.
15. And Moses went up. Arrangements having been made for his absence, Moses ascended with Joshua to the upper part of the mountain, there to await further directions. The “cloud” refers to the one mentioned in ch. 19:16. Though summoned by God, Moses did not enter the divine presence until bidden to do so, six days later. Today, as then, heart preparation and contemplation upon the character and will of God must precede intimate association with Him (cf. Acts 1:14; 2:1). Moses and Joshua no doubt spent this time in meditation and prayer.
17. Devouring fire. The contrast between the covering cloud that embraced Moses (v. 18) in blessed fellowship and communion with His Maker and the “devouring fire” is significant. Those who, like Moses, walk in God’s ways may be assured of protection and security “in the secret place … under the shadow of the Almighty” (Ps. 91:1, 2). Those who turn from the paths of righteousness will find, not comfort and assurance, but retributive justice, for God will appear to them as “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:25, 29).
18. Into the midst of the cloud. Leaving Joshua, Moses entered the cloud and remained there “forty days and forty nights” (PP 313). During this entire time he was without food (Deut. 9:9; cf. 1 Kings 19:8; Matt. 4:2).
Moses’ experience here was extraordinary. It impresses the lesson that communion with God imparts to the soul its truest strength and sweetest refreshment. Without it the spirit faints (see Luke 18:1), the world steals in upon us, our thoughts and words become “of the earth, earthy” (1 Cor. 15:47), and we neither have spiritual life in ourselves nor can impart it to others. It is in communion with God that gifts are received for men. It was so with Moses; it is so with us. The further fact that Moses was alone with God suggest the value of secret prayer (Matt. 6:6). Even in the whirl and bustle of a great city, solitude with God and silent supplication bring help for meeting the issues of the day.
2. Bring me an offering. The divine will had been revealed to Israel in the Decalogue, the laws and “judgments” of the “book of the covenant” had been given to Moses, and the covenant between God and His people had been ratified. But no permanent form of worship had as yet been instituted. Thus far, only an “altar” had been introduced and certain directions given concerning it (ch. 20:24-26), but no complete system had been arranged whereby the worship of the one true God might become an effective means of bringing the people close to Him in fellowship and obedience, and of safeguarding them against the worship of the many gods of the heathen. The people were to have the privilege of participating in the construction of the place that was to be God’s dwelling among them.
Giveth it willingly. Literally, “whose heart impels him.” God desired only those gifts that came from the heart, not merely from the hands or purse. He would accept only those that were freely and “willingly” given (2 Cor. 9:6, 7). Only he who gives with his heart has his name inscribed in the inventory of God, for he alone gives in the spirit of the church of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1-5). That the people responded in this fashion is evident from Ex. 35:21-29 and 36:3-7. So fully did they respond that they had to be “restrained from bringing.” Thus, the tabernacle was the result of freewill offerings. A like spirit was witnessed in David’s time when the Temple was built (1 Chron. 29:1-9), and again when the exiles returning from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel rebuilt the Temple (Ezra 2:68, 69; Haggai 1:12-14).
3. Gold. Three metals were to be used in the tabernacle itself and in its articles of furniture. The “brass” was an alloy of copper and tin, and therefore bronze rather than brass. When the Hebrews left Egypt they had “borrowed” treasure from the Egyptians (see on chs. 3:22; 12:35, 36). The people gave to the Lord the best of what they had. God will not accept a “sacrifice” that is “blind,” “lame,” or “sick” (Mal. 1:8). This does not mean that God expects us to give beyond our ability, but rather, to the best of our ability (2 Cor. 8:12).
The widow’s “mite” (Mark 12:41-44) is as pleasing to Him as the “alabaster box of very precious ointment” (Matt. 26:6-13), or the “price” of an estate laid at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:1, 2). This giving to God of our best applies not only to possessions but to our capabilities, time, and strength as well. The best of our powers should be His, our warmest affections, our deepest thoughts, our highest aspirations. Many kinds of gifts are required in Christ’s service, and there is none so poor or lacking in ability that he cannot do his part. We must not lose the lesson taught by the failure of the man with the but one talent (Matt. 25:14, 15, 24-30). The Israelites laid up their treasures in the heaven by dedicating them to the work and service of God (Matt. 6:19-21). They were not deceived by the “profit motive” of the world, for they did not purpose to “gain” that “in exchange” for the life to come (see Matt. 16:25, 26).
5. Badgers’ skins. The Hebrew word here rendered “badger” seems to be a loan word from Egyptian, a term for a kind of leather from unspecified animals; it is also held to be related to an Arabic word for “seal,” particularly the dugong, or sea cow (PP 347). This aquatic herbivorous animal, which is 10 to 12 ft. long, has a round head, breasts for suckling its young, and a divided tail. It is often found among the coral rocks of the Red Sea. It is supposed that the dugong gave rise to the legendary mermaid. The “badger” skins formed the outer covering of the tabernacle.
Shittim wood. That is, acacia wood. It is hard, durable, and close-grained, and thus most suitable for cabinet work.
8. Make me a sanctuary. Though the Hebrews knew, as we know, that the great God could not possibly “dwell” in any building made by men (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 2:6; Isa. 66:1; Jer. 23:23, 24), it did not seem appropriate that there should be worship without a temple. Furthermore, the sanctuary provided a visible center for the worship of the one true God, and was thus a bulwark against the worship of the many gods of the heathen. It brought God near to His people and made His presence among them real. This too was a protection against idolatry (Ex. 29:43, 45; (Num. 35:34). Inasmuch as at that time the Israelites were a nomadic, a wandering people, the sanctuary was to be a tent that could easily be dismantled and moved from place to place. It is significant that the Hebrew word for “sanctuary” is never applied to a heathen temple.
That I may dwell. In a spiritual sense, God has ever sought an abode with men and cannot “rest” until this has been accorded Him (Ps. 132:13-16), first in the hearts of His people individually (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19) and then in the midst of any company who meet to worship Him (Matt. 18:20). The system centering in the earthly tabernacle pointed forward to Christ, who later “dwelt,” literally “tabernacled,” among men (John 1:14).
The Hebrew word shakan, “dwell,” means to be a permanent resident in a community. It is closely related to the word Shekinah, used of the manifestation of divine glory that took up its abode above the mercy seat PP 349). The Shekinah was the symbol of the divine presence, in which God promised to “dwell among them” (see Ex. 25:22).
9. After the pattern. This shows that though the workmanship was man’s the plan was God’s. God has ever counted upon human agencies to cooperate in the building of His house. In this work every individual may have the satisfaction of taking part.
In the mount Moses saw “a miniature representation” of the heavenly sanctuary (PP 343; Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5), the “true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:2). The one on earth is said to be a “pattern” of “heavenly things” (Heb. 9:23, 24) because it was made “according to the pattern” shown to Moses (Heb. 8:5). It was a “copy” of the “great original” in heaven (GC 414). In vision John was ushered into the heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 15:5), where he saw the ark (Rev. 11:19), the altar of incense (Rev. 8:3-5), and possibly the candlestick (Rev. 1:12; 11:4). There is, thus, “indisputable proof of the existence of a sanctuary in heaven,” where the Ruler of the universe sits enthroned (GC 415) and where Christ ministers as our great high priest (Heb. 8:1, 2).
It is futile, however, to speculate as to the dimensions, exact appearance, or precise arrangement of the heavenly sanctuary, for “no earthly structure could represent its vastness and its glory” (PP 357). Man is “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), yet only Christ is “the express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3). Anything finite can at best but dimly resemble that which is infinite. Moses was shown not the heavenly sanctuary itself, but a representation of it. The earthly sanctuary was patterned after that in heaven to the extent that it was a vivid representation of the various aspects of Christ’s ministry on behalf of fallen man (PP 357). We should focus our attention on what He is doing for us there, as Paul does in Hebrews (Heb. 3:1; 10:12, 19-22; etc.).
The tabernacle in heaven, like that on earth, was set up to deal with sin. Christ “entered upon His mediatorial work” after His resurrection and prior to His ascension 40 days later (DA 819). He was prepared to take up His priestly ministry by virtue of having obtained redemption for us through His blood (Heb. 9:12).
Solomon knew that even his Temple, though it excelled the wilderness tabernacle in size and beauty, could not contain God (1 Kings 8:27). Yet God owned it as His house (Isa. 56:7), as He later did Herod’s Temple (Matt. 21:31). And He who dwells “in the high and holy place” will take up His abode “with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa. 57:15).
10. An ark. The Hebrew word thus translated may be from a root meaning “to collect,” “to gather.” If so, an “ark” was a chest into which things might be collected for safekeeping. A related Assyrian word, arânu, “box,” is derived from the root aramu, “to cover.”
A cubit. The Hebrews, like the Egyptians, made use of both a long and a short cubit. Though the length of the Hebrew cubit is a matter of conjecture, it is known that the common Egyptian cubit was 17.7 in. and the royal cubit 20.6 in. Both must have been known to the Hebrews, who built Egyptian cities. Since in Hezekiah’s time the Hebrews had a cubit of about 17.5 in. (see p. 165), approximately the common Egyptian cubit, it can be assumed that this measure was used to build the tabernacle. Accordingly, the ark would be about 3 ft. 73/4 in. (1.11 m.) in length and 2 ft. 21/4 in. (0.67 m.) in breadth and height.
12. The four corners. Literally, “its four feet.” The rings were not attached at the upper “corners,” but to the four “feet,” or “bases” (cf. v. 22). The “staves,” or “poles,” inserted through these rings (v. 13) were to rest upon the shoulders of the men who carried the ark during the time of Israel’s wanderings. These “staves” were to remain in place (v. 15) to avoid the need for touching any part of the ark when it was set down or taken up. Since these staves were not part of the ark itself, no sacrilege would be committed in touching or handling them (see 2 Sam. 6:6, 7).
16. The testimony. That is, the two tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments (chs. 30:6; 31:18; 32:15, 16). The main purpose of the ark was to serve as a repository for the holy law of God. Because the tables of stone were a transcript of the character and will of God, and were, furthermore, inscribed by God’s own hand, they were honored as the most sacred object in the sanctuary. The latter was therefore called the “tabernacle of testimony” (Ex. 38:21; Num. 9:15; etc.). The law was also known as “the covenant” (Deut. 4:12, 13; 9:9-15), and the ark was therefore commonly called the “ark of the covenant” (Deut. 31:26; Heb. 9:4; etc.).
17. A mercy seat. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to cover,” that is, “to pardon” sin. It represented divine mercy. Significantly, it was of “pure gold,” implying that mercy is the most precious of God’s attributes. It was placed over the law, inasmuch as mercy transcends justice (Ps. 85:10; 89:14). The ark with its justice and the mercy seat with its mercy were both needed to reveal the full character of God’s dealings with men. Mercy without justice is weak sentimentality, subversive of all moral order. On the other hand, justice without mercy is moral severity, theoretically without a flaw, but revolting to both God and man.
The ark and the mercy seat constituted the very heart of the sanctuary. Above the mercy seat was the Shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence. The tables of the law within the ark testified to the fact that God’s kingdom is founded on an immutable standard of righteousness (Ps. 97:2), which even divine grace must respect. Grace cannot be dispensed on terms which “make void the law” (Rom. 3:31). When sin is pardoned, the law’s claim against the sinner must also be satisfied. The very purpose of the gospel is to secure for the sinner the forgiveness of his sins, by faith in a means that does not “make void the law,” but “establishes” it. While the tables within the ark testified against the people, the mercy seat pointed to a way in which the claims of the law could be met and the sinner saved from death, the penalty of the law. On the basis of law alone there can be no reunion between God and man, since sin separates us from Him (Isa. 59:1, 2). The blood-sprinkled mercy seat must intervene, for it is only on the ground of Christ’s mediation on our behalf that we can draw near to God (Heb. 7:25).
18. Cherubims. More accurately, “cherubim,” the Hebrew plural for “cherub.” The derivation of the word is uncertain. The cherubim were attached to the mercy seat, one at either end (see Gen. 3:24). One wing of each angel was stretched forth on high, and the other was folded over his body (see Eze. 1:11) in token of reverence and humility. The position of the cherubim with their faces turned toward each other and directed downward toward the ark, represented the reverence with which the heavenly host regard the law of God, and their interest in the plan of redemption.
23. A table of shittim wood. Leaving the holy of holies, Moses now describes the furniture of the holy place. The first article mentioned is the table of “shewbread,” or “the bread of the Presence” (RSV). Mark calls this, the “shewbread” (Mark 2:26), literally, “the bread of the presentation,” that is, the bread presented to God. Paul uses the same Greek word in Heb. 9:2. This table was about 2 ft. 11 in. long, 1 ft. 51/2 in. broad, and 2 ft. 21/4 in. high (88.9 by 44.5 by 66.7 cm.; see on Ex. 25:10). As one entered the tabernacle, it would be at the right, or on the north (ch. 40:22).
24. A crown of gold round about. This was a border, or molding, around the top to prevent things from falling off. Josephus mentions that the “four rings” (v. 26) were inserted in the feet of the table, and through them went the “staves” for carrying it (Antiquities iii. 6. 6).
29. The dishes. Probably the plates on which the loaves of bread were placed. The “spoons” were the cups, or ports, in which the incense was burned, as may be seen in the bas-relief of the table on the Arch of Titus, erected in rome to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem a.d. 70. the “covers,” literally, “flagons” or “pitchers,” and the “bowls” were used for the drink offerings, which accompanied the meat offerings (Lev. 23:13, 18, 37; etc.).
To cover. Literally, “to pour out.”
30. Set upon the table. The “shewbread,” or “bread of the Presence,” consisted of 12 loaves, or cakes, which were replaced each Sabbath. The loaves that were removed, being considered holy, were eaten by the priests in the “holy place” (Lev. 24:5-9). These 12 loaves constituted a perpetual thank offering to God from the 12 tribes, for the blessings of life they received from Him daily. In a higher sense, this bread pointed to the spiritual bread, Jesus Christ.
31. A candlestick. Preferably, a “lampstand.” A shown upon the Arch of Titus and confirmed by Josephus (Antiquities iii. 6. 7) the “candlestick” consisted of an upright shaft, from each side of which three branches extended upward, in pairs (v. 35), to the same level. Its dimensions are not given, but it was made of solid gold. Its branches were decorated with almond-shaped “bowls,” or cups (v. 33), with “knops,” that is knobs or capitals, resembling pomegranates, according to some Bible scholars, and with “flowers.” One by one the lamps of the “candlestick” were trimmed every evening at sunset, and again in the morning (Ex. 27:20, 21; 30:7, 8; Lev. 24:3, 4). They were never all extinguished at of time (PP 348). As the priest entered the first apartment of the tabernacle the candlestick would be on his left, to the south (Ex. 40:24).
38. The tongs. These were either pincers or snuffers, used to trim the wicks of the lamps. The “snuffdishes” were receptacles for receiving the part of the wicks removed by the “tongs.”
39. A talent of pure gold. Equivalent in weight to 75.38 lb. avoir. (34.19 kg.). Thus would be 108.16 cu. in. (1772.4 cu. cm.) and would make a cube a little more than 43/4 in. (1756.52 cu. cm.) on a side. In one sense the “candlestick” represented the people of God as the moral and spiritual light of the world, individually (Matt. 5:14-16; Phil. 2:15) and as a church (Rev. 1:12, 20). It represented also the power of the Holy Spirit to illumine the church (Zech. 4:2-6; Rev. 4:5). In the highest sense, however, as previously stated, it points to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (John 9:5), who is the light of the world (John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46), and imparts to the soul “every good gift and every perfect gift” which comes from the “Father of lights” (James 1:17).
1. The tabernacle. From mishkan, a “dwelling,” a word derived from shakan, “to dwell.” It is related Shekinah, the glorious presence of God (see on Ex. 25:8 and Gen. 3:24) in the holy of holies (Ex. 25:22). The word “tabernacle” might be more accurately rendered today as “tent” or “dwelling.”
The sacred furniture of the “tabernacle” has been described, with the exception of the altar of incense. That is considered in ch. 30:1-10. Chapter 26 is concerned with directions for making the sacred “tabernacle” itself. This had two main parts:
a.A quadrangular enclosure 30 cubits long by 10 cubits wide and 10 high (43 ft. 9 in. by 14 ft. 7 in. (13.34 by 4.45 by 4.45 m.; see on ch. 25:10) open at one end. The three sides were made of acacia boards covered with gold.
b.A tent of goats’ hair, probably flat on top, was stretched over the tabernacle. The word “tent” is wrongly translated as “covering” in v. 7, but appears correctly elsewhere in the chapter (vs. 11-14, 36). An outer covering of “rams’ skins dyed red,” or tanned rams’ skins, and “badgers’ skins” (see on ch. 25:5), over the tent of goats’ hair.
There were secondary parts to the structure, such as:
a.The “sockets,” or bases, which were to hold and support the upright boards that enclosed the tabernacle.
b.The “bars” to be used to hold these boards together.
c.The “vail,” or curtain, stretched on pillars from one side of the tabernacle to the other, thus separating it into two apartments. The front apartment, the “holy place,” or “first tabernacle,” was twice as long as the “most holy place” (Ex. 26:15-25, 33; see 1 Kings 6:16-20; Heb. 9:2-7), or 20 cubits long and 10 cubits wide (29 ft. 2 in. by 14 ft. 7 in., or 8.89 by 4.46 m.). The “most holy place,” or “the holiest of all” (Heb. 9:3), was 10 cubits in length and 10 in width (14 ft. 7 in., or 4.45 m. square).
d.A “hanging,” or curtain, covered the front, open end of the tabernacle where there were no boards.
Ten curtains. Fastened together as “breadths,” these formed the innermost of the four “coverings” (Ex. 26:7, 14), and thus the ceiling of the two apartments. These curtains were two cubits shorter than the outer curtains (v. 7), making the inner covering one cubit shorter on each covering than the outer covering.
Cherubims. Since the materials Aholiab used in his embroidery were identical with those here named, it is reasonable to think that these “cherubim” were embroidered in the “curtains” (chs. 35:35; 38:23). These cherubim represented the host of angels that attend the Lord and do His bidding (Ps. 103:20, 21; see on Gen. 3:24).
2. The length. Each curtain was 40 ft. 10 in. long and 5 ft. 10 in. (12.45 by 1.78 m.) wide. From the outside there was nothing particularly attractive about the tabernacle. But within—it was a thing of great beauty, with its gold, the blue, purple, and scarlet “curtains,” and the cherubim embroidered in them.
7. Curtains of goats’ hair. The Arabs still use goats’ hair in weaving their tents. It was goats’ hair that gave the sanctuary its strength and protected it in wet and stormy weather. These “curtains” were two cubits longer than the inner, linen curtains, or 43 ft. 10 in. (13.34 m.) long. Laid over the flat of the tabernacle, they would reach to the top of the silver “sockets” or bases on either side (see v. 19). There would be ample covering for the back wall of the tabernacle, and enough to protect the upper portion of the front of the tabernacle as well.
14. Rams’s skins. This “covering” was to go over the “curtains of goats’ hair” to ensure further protection from the weather. No size is mentioned, but it must have been sufficient for covering the goats’ hair curtains (v. 7).
15. Make boards. These were 14 ft. 7 in. long 2 ft. 2 in. wide (4.45 by 0.66 m.; v. 16). They were held erect by placing the two “tenons” (v. 17) of each board into two silver “sockets,” or bases. The boards were overlaid with gold (v. 29).
19. Forty sockets. These weighed talent, or 75 lb. 6 oz. (34.2 kg.), apiece (ch. 38:27). Each would form a cube a little less than 5.8 in. (14.7 cm.) on a side. The “sockets” were laid side by side upon the ground, forming a continuous foundation for the board walls. Forty more “sockets” were required to the north wall (ch. 26:21), 16 for the west wall, and 4 for the pillars between the 2 apartments, or 100 “sockets” in all (ch. 38:27). That the tabernacle was raised from the ground by this silver foundation typifies, according to some commentators, that the church is to be separate from the world. Here it has no permanent resting place, but looks forward in faith to the “city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Here we have “no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Heb. 13:14).
26. Bars. To hold the boards in place and for bracing the walls, “five bars” were to be made for each side and for the west end, four of which were to be passed through “rings” fastened to the boards. The fifth or middle “bar” in each wall was to pass through the center of the boards (see v. 28). It is probable that the four visible bars on each wall were on the outside of the tabernacle.
31. A vail. This was to be of the same material and workmanship as the “ten curtains” that formed the inner covering for the ceiling and walls of the tabernacle (v. 1), and like it, to have figures of cherubim embroidered into it in silver and gold thread (PP 345).
32. Four pillars. The “vail” (v. 31) was to hang “upon four pillars.” The “hanging for the door of the tent” was suspended from “five pillars” (vs. 36, 37). The inner veil did not extend all the way to the ceiling, but permitted the glory of God manifested above the mercy seat to be partially visible from the holy place (PP 353). The four pillars had “hooks” of gold, and rested upon “four sockets [bases] of silver,” in the same way as the boards in the walls (vs. 15, 19).
33. Taches. The “taches” were the buckles, or clasps, the held the veil up. The high priest alone went within the veil that separated the holy place from the most holy place, and that but once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16; Heb. 9:7). Before the veil, or in the holy place, the various parts of the “daily” service were conducted.
36. An hanging. This “hanging,” or screen, covered the eastern, or front, end of the tabernacle. Some Bible scholars believe it was possible to raise or lower this screen, as might be desired.
37. Five pillars. There is some difference of opinion as to whether the tabernacle had a flat or a gable roof. The weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that it was probably flat:
1.The outside curtains (v. 8) were 30 cubits long, the exact length required to provide a flat roof and to extend down either side as a covering for the gold-plated board walls. A gable roof would increase the length of covering required for the roof and correspondingly decrease the remaining length available for covering the sides. More or less of the lower portion of the gold-plated boards would thus be left exposed. But gold was otherwise reserved for the interior of the structure. The fact that the inner curtain was two cubits shorter than the outer three which covered it implies that the outer curtains were designed to protect it, and that they probably reached nearly to the ground.
2.No ridgepole is mentioned, nor is the use of one implied. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the five “pillars” varied in length.
3.No mention is made of any means of covering triangular gable ends, and it would be highly improbable that the ends were left open. Incidentally, the curtain which separated the holy place from the most holy did not extend to the top of the building (PP 353), so that light from the Shekinah might be partially visible above it from the first apartment of the sanctuary.
4.The tabernacle was a temporary, portable structure designed for use during the wilderness wanderings, until the erection of a more permanent building in the Promised Land. The insignificant amount of rainfall in the arid, wilderness would not make a flat roof an inconvenience.
Thus, while there is no positive evidence, it appears probable that the roof was flat. Sketches of the tabernacle showing a gable roof are based on the artist’s mental picture of it.
1. An altar. Hebrew, “the altar.” It was about 7 ft. 4 in. (2.22 m.) square by 4 ft. 5 in. (1.33 m.) high. Ancient temples were usually surrounded by open areas where sacrifices were offered and where the smoke might readily escape. As in the account of the tabernacle itself the furniture was first described, so the altar is now described before the court. It was more an altar frame than an altar (v. 8). Ancient altars were generally either square, as here (see 2 Chron. 4:1), or round.
The altar of burnt offering, with its shed blood, represents the great gospel truth of atonement for sin through the vicarious sacrifice of Christ (Isa. 53:4-7, 10; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:5-7; Heb. 13:10-12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9). The very position of this altar, near the door of the court, indicates that the sinner’s first need is to have his sins washed away by the blood of Christ (see Heb. 9:13, 14; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 7:14), and that until this is done he must not presume to worship God or even enter into His presence (Heb. 9:22). The altar witnessed to man’s guilt and his need of atonement and reconciliation, and then assured him that these had been made (John 1:29; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Col. 1:20).
2. His horns. That is, “its horns.” These projected from the four upper corners of the altar. The words “be of the same” indicate that the horns were part of the altar itself, not additions to it. To these horns the priest touched his finger, dipped in the blood of the sin offering (Ex. 29:12; Lev. 8:15; 9:9; 16:18). Offerings awaiting sacrifice were sometimes bound to them (Ps. 118:27). Criminals seeking sanctuary sometimes clung to them (1 Kings 1:50, 51; 2:28). In his graphic picture of the second advent of our crucified Lord, the prophet Habakkuk (ch. 3:4) saw “horns coming out of his hand”; “there,” in the prints of the nails in Christ’s hand, “was the hiding of his power.”
The word qeren, “horn,” originally designated the horn of an animal (Deut. 33:17). Inasmuch as an animal having horns generally uses them for attacking other animals, horns came to be symbolic of strength or power (1 Sam. 2:1, 10; Ps. 75:10; 112:9; etc.). In this sense David referred to God as “the horn of my salvation” (2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 18:2; Luke 1:69). The word “horn” is also symbolic of the strength and power of God’s chosen people (Ps. 148:14; Eze. 29:21; etc.). Thus a “horn” became symbolic of national power, and is commonly used by the prophets in this sense (Jer. 48:25; Dan. 8:3; 7:11; Rev. 12:3; etc.).
3. His pans. The “shovels” were for removing the ashes from the altar and placing them in the “pans.” The “basons” were vessels that received the blood of the sacrifices, and from which it was poured upon the altar. The “fleshhooks” were three-pronged forks (1 Sam. 2:13), used to arrange the various pieces into which the sacrifice was cut upon the altar. The “firepans” were for carrying burning embers from the altar.
Brass. That is, bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. Brass made of copper and zinc was unknown.
4. Grate. A heavy bronze grate was fitted into the altar halfway between the base and the top (v. 5). At the four corners of the bronze grate were fastened rings, through which bronze-plated poles were placed for carrying the altar (vs. 6, 7).
5. The compass. Probably a ledge about the top of the altar to assist the priests in placing offerings on it.
9. The court. The court was to be enclosed on the south and north sides with “hangings,” or curtains, of linen. The court was about 146 ft. (44.45 m.) in length.
12. The west side. The curtain on this side of the court was half as long, or about 73 ft. (22.23 m.). The court was thus rectangular in shape.
16. The grate of the court. One the east side, in the center, was a “hanging,” or screen, about 29 ft. 4 in. (8 m.) long. On either side of this “gate” was a “hanging” about 21 ft. 10 in. (6.65 m.) in length, and of the same material as the “vail” and the “hanging for the door of the tent” (ch. 26:33, 36).
17. All the pillars. Altogether 60 “pillars” were used to support the “hangings” which enclosed the court, or one about every 7 ft. 4 in. (3.46 m.). The “pillars” were probably of acacia wood plated with brass and were set in “sockets” or bases of brass (v. 10). The weight of these “sockets” is not given, but each must have been somewhat less than a talent (see ch. 38:29-31).
18. The height.The height of the “hangings” around the court was 5 cubits, or about 7 ft. 4 in. (3.46 m.). This was half the height of the tabernacle itself, which was thus plainly visible from outside the court (PP 347). Only the priests and Levites could move about freely in the court, which represented the first stage in man’s progress from the world to God. The atoning sacrifice on the altar of burnt offering and the cleansing of the laver (Ex. 30:18) precede communion with God.
19. The vessels. There must have been many vessels used in connection with the sanctuary service, among them being the laver (ch. 30:18). The “pins” were the pegs, or tent pins, which kept the tabernacle coverings taut and the “pillars,” or posts, in place. These minor accessories played their important part in the erection of the tabernacle. They did not rank, perhaps, with the furniture in the two apartments of the tabernacle and with the altar of burnt offering; nevertheless, without them the ministrations of the priests would have failed. They were like the indispensable “helps” that God has ever placed “in the church” (1 Cor. 12:28).
20. Pure oil olive. This was prepared from unripe fruit “beaten,” or pounded in a mortar rather than crushed in a mill. As a result, it was clear and colorless and burned brightly, with little smoke.
To burn always. The seven lamps were never all extinguished at one time, but burned continuously day and night (PP 348) except when the tabernacle was in transit from one campsite to another. The lamps were tended morning and evening (ch. 30:7, 8).
21. Tabernacle of the congregation. Literally, “the tent of meeting” (RSV). It was here that God met with Moses (ch. 25:22) and that the people gathered to meet with God (Ex. 29:42; Num. 10:3).
Before the testimony. That is, before the ark that held the “testimony,” or tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments (Ex. 31:18; 32:15, 16).
From evening to morning. Special care was to be taken that the lamps should not go out at night. Inasmuch as the charge, “It shall be a statute for ever,” does not occur often in Exodus, its use must indicate items of special importance. The “eternal light” (see Lev. 24:2) was a perpetual reminder of Him in whom there is “no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Thus it should be with the church, which is ever to be “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14). Its light should never go out (see John 3:19-21). The “eternal light” in the sanctuary represented the “true light,” “the light of men” (John 1:4-9; DA 464). It pointed also to the Holy Scriptures, which are a lamp unto our feet (Ps. 119:105; Isa. 40:8). The olive oil is a type of the Holy Spirit, the source and means of spiritual illumination (Zech. 4:2-6; Acts 2:1-4).
It was God’s purpose that Israel should be a light to the nations about them (COL 286). The “advantage” the Jews had was “chiefly” that “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1, 2)—the prophetic word that foretold the coming of the living Word, the “true Light” that illumines “every man that cometh into the world” (Zech. 4:1-4; John 1:9; DA 463).
1. Take thou unto thee. Literally, “cause to draw near to thee.” Heretofore Moses had been the one and only medium of communication between God and the people. To Aaron his brother and to his brother’s sons were now to be given certain tasks that had been his. As the meekest of men (Num. 12:3) Moses willingly surrendered his prerogatives, thus evincing a noble and godlike character (Lev. 8:1-30; cf. John 3:30). He realized that with the giving of the law there arose the need for a separate priesthood; the establishment of the tabernacle called for it. With the oral proclamation of God’s law came also an increased consciousness of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:9). This called for a priesthood to mediate between sinners and the holy God (see Heb. 2:17; 5:1-3), to serve as a link between the holy and the unholy. Also, the covenant made Israel “a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:5, 6), and this priestly calling of the nation was to be expressed officially by the house of Aaron as the people’s representatives (Num. 3:12; 8:17, 18). God’s desire in the erection of the tabernacle was that He might “dwell among” His people (Ex. 25:8), yet only those consecrated as priests to represent the people might approach the sacred presence within the sanctuary. Thus, when the high priest interceded with God on behalf of the people, he did so in their name.
Nadab and Abihu are coupled together, as are also Eleazar and Ithamar. This separation of the two pairs of brothers is probably due to the sin and early death of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1, 2). Nothing is known of Ithamar personally after the death of his older brothers (Lev 10:6, 12). Eleazar became high priest (Num. 34:17; Joshua 14:1). The priestly family founded by Ithamar included Eli (1 Sam. 1:9; cf. 1 Kings 2:27 and 1 Chron. 24:3, 6) and continued after the captivity (Ezra 8:2).
2. Holy garments. Leaving the description of the inanimate things of the tabernacle, we now come to the men who were to officiate therein. Having chosen those who were to be His priests, God proceeds to clothe them with the special garments that were to be their insignia of office.
For glory. The garments were to be “for glory,” in order to elevate the priestly office in the eyes of the people, so that they would regard the priestly ministrations with greater reverence. This priestly apparel would also serve to distinguish the priests as a class by themselves, in a certain sense above the rest of the nation. Also, the garments were to the priests themselves a constant reminder of their holy station, and of its demand for consecrated living. The garments helped to impress them that they were “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1).
For beauty. The holy garments were “for beauty,” to harmonize with the richness and splendor of the tabernacle in which the priests were to minister, and to emphasize the “beauty of holiness” (1 Chron. 16:29; Ps. 29:2; 96:9). The beauties of nature indicate that the Creator is a lover of beauty, and that He looks with favor upon beauty in the worship we give to Him. The garments of the high priests were not only different from those of the common priests, but much more attractive. Gold was worked into their very texture, precious stones made them glitter. Everything was done to make them lovely and impressive. The priests were to wear their sacred garments when they served in the sanctuary, but never at other times (see Ex. 35:19; Lev. 16:4, 23, 24; Eze. 42:14; 44:19). These garments were representative of the character of God, which He sought to have reproduced in the hearts and lives of His people (see Isa. 64:6; 61:10; Zech. 3:3, 4; Matt. 22:11; Rev. 19:8). The fact that the colors and materials of the high priest’s garments were the same as those used for the veil and entrance curtain of the tabernacle suggests the lesson that the character of the worshipers, as represented by the high priest, must harmonize with the character of the sanctuary (see Matt. 5:48; 22:11-13; Eph. 1:3, 4; 2:6; Col. 3:1, 2; James 1:27; 1 John 2:15-17).
3. Wise hearted. “An able mind” (RSV). In contrast with the modern figurative conception of the heart as the seat of the affections and emotions, the Jews thought of it as the seat of wisdom (Ex. 31:6; 35:10, 25; Job 9:4; Prov. 11:29; etc.).
To consecrate him. Aaron was to be invested in these “garments,” as a part of the ceremony of his consecration (Ex. 29:5-9; Lev. 8:7-13). The garments were also for Aaron’s “sons” as his successors in the office of high priest.
5. Take gold. Except for the gold, these materials are the same as those used for the veil that separated the most holy from the holy place (ch. 26:31), the ten interior curtains (ch. 26:1), and the “hanging” at the door of the tabernacle (ch. 26:36).
6. The ephod of gold. The ephod was considered the most sacred part of the priestly vestments, and became the emblem of the priestly office (1 Sam. 2:18, 28; 14:3; 22:18). This was to hold the “breastplate,” the two onyx stones, and the Urim and the Thummim (Ex. 28:9, 30). It was a vest, or waistcoat, in two parts, one to cover the chest and the other the back, joined together by two “shoulder pieces” (v. 7) and at the waist by a band called “the curious [“skilfully woven,” RSV] girdle of the ephod” (v. 8), which was of one piece with the ephod. It passed around the body, holding the two parts of the ephod in place. The “gold” was in the shape of very fine thread or wire, sewn into the fabric after it had been woven, as was commonly done in Egypt (see ch. 39:3). “Cunning work” (v. 6) refers to the work of ingenious and artistic craftsmen. The Israelites may have carried small hand looms with them from Egypt. The blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, gold, and the gems of the ephod gave it a variety and a beauty which made it the most glorious of all the priestly vestments. Variety has a charm of its own, and is a characteristic of the church in which “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4).
9. Two onyx stones. There has been some difference of opinion as to what stones are meant by the word translated “onyx.” According to the LXX, they were “emeralds.” Josephus calls them “sardonyx,” the best variety of onyx (Antiquities iii. 7. 5). It is probable that “onyx,” an excellent stone for engraving, was the stone designated. In Egypt the royal signet ring would have on its face the owner’s name.
13. Ouches. That is, settings of open, or filigree, work, which were quite common in Egyptian ornaments. These were probably sewn to the ephod. The “two chains” (v. 14), or cords of twisted gold wire, were fastened to them. “Wreathen work” was twisted or braided. These stones served the double purpose of reminding the high priest that he bore upon his shoulders the solemn and sacred responsibility of being the intercessor between the 12 tribes and God, and of reminding God, as it were, that the high priest represented the tribes and officiated for them.
15. The breastplate of judgment. Considerable space is devoted to a detailed description of this part of the high priest’s official garb (vs. 15-30), indicating its intricate form and significance. The chief purpose of the ephod was to hold the breastplate, which was attached to it after it had been put on, and formed its principal ornament. The word translated “breastplate” means “ornament.” This must have been the most striking and brilliant part of the high priest’s attire. It was called “the breastplate of judgment [decision],” because it served primarily for bearing the “Urim and the Thummim” (v. 30), whereby God was consulted and whereby He signified His will to the people. The materials of the breastplate were the same as for the ephod (v. 6).
16. Doubled. Two thickness would give additional strength to the breastplate for carrying the 12 heavy gems. A “span” was half a cubit, or about 101/3 in.
21. Names of the children of Israel. That is, according to the names of the children of Israel, meaning the 12 tribes. “With his name” should read “according to its name.” Each stone would have on it the name of one of the 12 tribes. These names engraved on the 12 jewels aptly illustrate the value of men and women in the sight of our heavenly Father. God regards His people as precious gems in the jewel box of His love (Mal. 3:17). He thinks of His church as a bride adorned “with her jewels” (Isa. 61:10). She is His “peculiar treasure” (Ex. 19:5).
In the Revelation the “twelve gates” and the “twelve foundations” of the wall of the New Jerusalem are precious stones, on which are “the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel” and “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” respectively (Rev. 21:12, 14). The fact that each of the 12 tribes was represented by a gem of its own, different from the others, suggests that every individual Christian has his own distinct personality, his own beauty in Heaven’s sight. God does not expect us to be alike. He honors us for what we are and what we can do for Him. There may be differences in experience and ability, “diversities of gifts,” but there is ever manifest “the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4-7). Each name on a separate jewel also suggests that God thinks of His people as distinct individuals, known, loved, and cared for by Him (Ps. 87:5, 6; Isa. 57:15; Matt. 25:40, 45; Luke 15:3-10).
The attention given in this chapter to minute details speaks encouragement to those who may feel that they are not doing any great work for God. Without the delicate beauty of detail there would be no appropriate background for the more conspicuous and seemingly more important things. Without the former the latter would not have been able to function. Let us not despise the “small things” (Zech. 4:10), the small services rendered in love. Though it be but a “cup of cold water” to “one of these little ones,” we “shall in no wise lose” our “reward” (Matt. 10:42).
22. Chains.These were to be made in the same way as the “two chains” of v. 14, that is, of gold wire twisted tightly like a rope.
23. Two rings of gold. These were for fastening the breastplate to the ephod. There were to be four rings, one in each upper corner (v. 23) and one behind each lower corner (v. 26). A cord of twisted gold wire was passed through each of the two upper rings and fastened to the “two ouches,” or filigree settings, of the shoulder stones (v. 25; cf. vs. 11-14). Through each of the two lower rings a blue lace or ribbon was passed, which was tied to two rings placed for that purpose on the front of the ephod, “above the curious girdle” (vs. 26-28). Thus secured at its four corners the breastplate could not be “loosed from the ephod” (v. 28).
29. Upon his heart. Aaron, like the high priests who succeeded him, was to wear the names of the children of Israel not only upon his shoulders (v. 12) but also “upon his heart.” Thus he presented them continually before the Lord upon his shoulders to show that he carried a solemn responsibility for them, and upon his heart to indicate his love and affection for them. Whenever he went into the tabernacle for the people, his heart was bowed before the Lord in the consciousness of their sin and need. Christ, our High Priest in the sanctuary in heaven (Heb. 3:1; 8:1, 2), has accepted responsibility for our salvation, for the “government” of the kingdom of grace is “upon his shoulder” (Isa. 9:6). He also bears us on His heart (see Gal. 2:20), for in all our “affliction” He is “afflicted,” and He is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Isa. 63:8, 9; Heb. 2:14-18; 4:14-16).
For a memorial. The high priest bore the names of Israel “continually,” that they might ever be remembered before God. He was never to forget his position and responsibility as their representative. In the same way Christ “ever liveth to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25), having “graven” us upon the palms of His “hands” (Isa. 49:16).
30. The Urim and the Thummim. These words mean, respectively, “light” and “perfection.” Though he does not specifically refer to the Urim and the Thummim by name, Josephus does speak of the “shining” of the stones on the breastplate of the high priest, which “shining,” he says, ceased two centuries previously, owing to the prevailing iniquity (Antiquities iii. 8. 9). Through these two stones God made known His will. A halo of light encircling the Urim was a token of the divine approval on matters brought before Him, and a cloud shadowing the Thummim was evidence of disapproval (PP 351). For instances of this see 1 Sam. 23:9-12; 28:6; 30:7, 8. The breastplate was to the garments of the high priest what the mercy seat was to the sanctuary itself. On both, God revealed His glory and made known His will (cf. Ex. 25:22; Ps. 80:1; Isa. 37:16).
31. The robe. This was to be worn by the high priest underneath the ephod. It was woven without a seam (ch. 39:22; PP 351; DA 746). Against the background of this blue robe the variegated colors of the breastplate and the ephod must have stood forth in striking contrast. This robe typifies perfection of character, the “robe of righteousness” to be worn by those who have faith in Christ (Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:4). As it was “woven” in one piece, and hence seamless, it further typifies the coat “without seam” that Jesus wore (John 19:23) and the unity God desires for His church (John 17:21-23; Eph. 4:3, 5, 11-13).
32. An hole in the top. This was for the head of the high priest. The “binding” around this hole strengthened its edge to prevent tearing or fraying.
33. Pomegranates. These were probably tassels in the form of pomegranates, attached to the “hem,” or rather border, of the robe.
34. A golden bell. The “bells” were of pure gold (ch. 39:25), and, alternating with the “pomegranates,” could be heard by the people as the high priest ministered within the sanctuary (ch. 28:35). The tinkling bells made the worshipers conscious that he was officiating on their behalf in God’s presence, and prompted them to follow him in their thoughts and prayers as he went about the different parts of the priestly ritual. The sound of the bells joined priest and people together in worship. For the high priest to attempt to conduct the sanctuary service without the robe and its bells would break this bond of fellowship and separate the people from their intercessor. His ministration would become a vain procedure, one for which there was no excuse. To impress the importance of this link between the people and their representative, the penalty for neglect was death (v. 35). The bells and pomegranates remind us that by faith we may now enter boldly “into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” for the forgiveness of sin (Heb. 4:16; 10:19). By faith we too may hear the sound from the sanctuary that directs our hearts and minds upward to where Christ sits at the right hand of God to make intercession for us (Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1-3; Heb. 8:1, 2; GC 427).
36. A plate. This was the most conspicuous and significant feature of the “mitre” (v. 37). It was placed directly in front, over the forehead, and so attracted universal attention, more so perhaps than even the breastplate. Its position made it “the culminating point of the whole priestly attire.” This position was given added force and meaning by the inscription it bore, “Holiness to the Lord.” This engraving gave to the people the highest conception of religion and pointed to its supreme objective (Lev. 11:44, 45; Heb. 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15, 16). It was a constant reminder that, without this essential, all the exercises of worship would in God’s sight be mockery (see Isa. 1:11-17). As to the high priest, it instructed him that his ministration was not to become a mere form, but that its objective was the consecration of his own life and the lives of the people. This is a most important lesson for ministers of God today (Isa. 52:11; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). Those ministers who fail so to live and conduct themselves are under the most severe condemnation of Heaven (1 Sam. 2:12-36; 3:11-14; 4:11; Mal. 2:1-9). The importance of the inscription upon the miter explains why it is mentioned even before the miter itself.
37. On a blue lace. According to ch. 39:31, the “plate” was tied to the miter by this “blue lace.”
The mitre. In describing the garments of the high priest Josephus writes: “Upon his head he wears a cap, not brought to a conic form … and its make is such that it seems to be a crown, being made of thick swathes, but the contexture is of linen; and it is doubled round many times, and sewed together” (Antiquities iii. 7. 3). According to this, the “mitre” was a white turban.
38. Upon Aaron’s forehead. This inscription, which was “always” to be on the forehead of the high priest as he ministered, reminded him of his solemn responsibility as the representative of the people. As such, he was clothed, as it were, with the official “holiness” engraved upon the plate. He was a type and representative of Him who was made “sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), and through whom alone real atonement can be made before the Father.
39. Embroider. The “coat” was a long, white linen gown or tunic worn over the “linen breeches” or drawers (see v. 42). Of this coat Josephus wrote: “This vestment reaches down to the feet, and sits close to the body; and has sleeves that are tied fast to the arms” (Antiquities iii. 7. 2).
The girdle. This was made of “fine twined linen” of variegated colors and was artistically embroidered (ch. 39:29).
Of needlework. Literally, “the work of an embroiderer.” Since the girdle was worn directly over the coat and under the robe of the ephod, it was not seen. Though hidden, it was costly and beautiful. Thus was taught the lesson that things devoted to God’s service, whether or not they are seen, should be of the best. Our motive in doing God’s work should be to honor God, not merely to do what will be pleasing in the sight of men (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:4). True piety will make no difference between the seen and the unseen, between that which is hidden and that which is open to sight, but will strive, rather, after sincerity, honesty, and fitness in all that pertains to God (Eph. 6:5-7).
40. For Aaron’s sons. Verses 40-43 describe the apparel of the common priest. The “girdles,” or sashes, were probably of the same material and workmanship as those of the high priest. The “bonnets” were linen turbans.
For glory. It is significant that the simple attire of the common priest, a robe of white linen, was to be “for glory and for beauty,” as well as that of the high priest (see v. 2). White is used in the Scriptures as the symbol of purity (Rev. 4:4; 7:9, 14; 19:8).
42. Linen breeches. That is, linen drawers, which reached from the waist to a little above the knee.
43. Tabernacle of the congregation. See on ch. 27:21. The priestly garments were ever to be “upon Aaron, and upon his sons,” when they engaged in the sacred services of the sanctuary, lest they become guilty of profaning that which was sacred, and so be punished with death.
The Aaronic priesthood was both representative and mediatorial. The high priest in particular represented the people before God and interceded on their behalf (Zech. 3:3-5; Heb. 2:17; 5:1; 8:3). He was the vital link between a holy God and an unholy people. In both respects the Aaronic priesthood typified that of Christ. This was true of the office itself (Heb. 3:1), of His personal and official holiness (Heb. 4:15; 7:26), of His representation of the people (Heb. 6:19, 20), of His work of mediation and intercession (Heb. 9:11, 12, 24), and of His heavenly glory (Heb. 2:9).
1. This is the thing. That is, concerning the ceremony of consecration (see ch. 28:41). The “bullock” and the “two rams” were to be ready for the sacrifice that was to follow the investiture and the anointing, which explains why this preparation is mentioned first.
Without blemish. Literally, “perfect,” as otherwise it would be an offense to God (Mal. 1:6-14). The rite of consecration, throughout, emphasized the necessity of holiness. It would be well for every minister of the gospel to study most thoughtfully Ex. 28 and 29 for an adequate understanding of the nature and responsibility of his sacred office.
2. Unleavened bread. This was ceremonially purer than leavened bread, since fermentation is a type of sin and corruption (Ex. 12:15; Matt. 16:6, 12; 1 Cor. 5:6-8).
Tempered with oil. Literally, “mixed with oil.” Oil was one ingredient of the cakes, in contrast with the wafers, over which oil was poured.
4. Unto the door. This probably refers to the “laver of brass” placed between the tabernacle entrance and the altar of burnt offering, where the various ablutions required by law took place (ch. 30:18-21).
Shalt wash them. Ritual washings constituted an important part of the ceremonies of most ancient religions. This was natural; physical cleansing is an appropriate analogy to moral and spiritual cleansing. The priests were required to perform these ablutions each time they entered the tabernacle or sacrificed at the altar of burnt offering (ch. 30:20), for they must be free from the stain and defilement of sin themselves before they ministered on behalf of others (see Ps. 51:7; Isa. 52:11; John 13:10, 11). In addition, the priests were to present sacrifices for specific sins (Lev. 4:3-12). The washing dealt with sin in a more general sense, and was concerned more with a priest’s official function than with his private life.
5. Take the garments. For a more complete account of this investiture of Aaron as high priest, see Lev. 8:7-9.
6. The holy crown. The golden plate with its blue lace ribbon was a kind of diadem, regarded in the East as an emblem of royalty. It marked the royal character of the high priest, who, as a type of Christ, was both priest and king (Lev. 8:9; Zech. 6:11-13; Matt. 2:2; 27:37).
7. The anointing oil. Its ingredients were probably of supreme quality (see chs. 25:6; 30:23-25). In harmony with the Mosaic law oil was used to initiate prophets, priests, and kings into their office. Oil is representative of the Holy Spirit, and of the outpouring of the Spirit upon those who are to receive it. The term “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah,” both of which mean “anointed” (see Acts 10:38). Aaron’s anointing therefore signified consecration to God’s service. Similarly, all parts of the tabernacle itself were to be anointed (Ex. 30:26-29).
8. Bring his sons. That is, to the door of the tabernacle (v. 4). The investiture of the high priest consisted of nine acts (Lev. 8:7-9), whereas that of the ordinary priests required but three: the putting on of the “coats,” or linen tunics, the girding with the “girdles,” and the putting on of the “caps.” No mention is made of their being anointed with oil, but only of oil being sprinkled upon their garments (Ex. 29:21; Lev. 8:30).
9. Thou shalt consecrate. Literally, “Thou shalt fill the hand of.” In Eastern lands installation into office was usually accomplished by putting into the hand of the official the insignia marking his functions. Here certain portions of the offerings were used for that purpose (v. 24).
10. Bullock. Literally, “the bull” (see v. 1). By placing their hands upon its head Aaron and his sons identified themselves with it and, in figure, transferred to it the guilt of their own sins and imperfections (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:1-4). The fact could not be overlooked that the law accepted as priests men with moral and spiritual infirmities (Heb. 7:28). Themselves sinful, Aaron and his sons were as yet unfit to stand before God in behalf of others. They needed to have sacrifices offered for themselves. There were three of these: a sin offering (see Ex. 29:10-15), a burnt offering (see vs. 15-19), and a peace offering (see vs. 19-22). These sacrifices, with the accompanying ceremonies, were to be repeated on seven successive days (vs. 35, 36). The altar, as defiled by the sin of those officiating at it, was likewise to be cleansed by the blood of the sin offering (vs. 36, 37).
12. Take of the blood. Because the horns of the altar symbolized the glory and power of salvation (Ps. 18:2), the blood of the bullock, representative of the life (see Lev. 17:14) of Aaron and his sons and presented in atonement for their sins, was first touched to them. The unused portion was poured out at the base of the altar. Such was the usual practice with sin offerings (Lev. 4:7), of which this was the first example.
13. All the fat. Fat was generally regarded as the best part of the offering, and therefore most acceptable to God (see on Lev. 3:3, 5). This was probably due in part to the fact that it burned with a bright flame and helped to consume the rest of the offering.
The caul. An “appendage” (RSV). This is the small omentum, a membrane which covers the upper part of the liver and attaches it to the stomach.
14. The flesh. The parts of the sacrifice here mentioned were disposed of according to the law concerning sin offerings (Lev. 4:11, 12). The curse of sin that was upon them rendered them unfit for food, and even unworthy of burial within the camp. In a similar way Christ “suffered without the gate” (Heb. 13:11-13).
15. One ram. Literally, “the ram, the one,” that is, one of the two rams mentioned in v. 1. Placing their hands on the ram points to the vicarious nature of the sacrifice. As a burnt offering (v. 18), the ram emphasized the idea of self-sacrifice.
16. Sprinkle it. Rather, cast or scatter it, that is, from a basin, in contrast to sprinkling it with the hand or with hyssop. Rabbinical tradition has it that the blood was cast at two opposite corners, the northeast and southwest, thus wetting all four sides, and scattered “round about upon the altar” as well.
17. Cut the ram in pieces. Literally, “into its pieces,” that is, into the natural bodily divisions. The “inwards” are the entrails. After being washed they were put with the other “pieces.”
18. Burn the whole ram. The general law of burnt offerings followed this practice (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17). The burnt offering typified the spirit of self-sacrifice, full consecration, and constant dependence upon the atoning blood of Christ, which is acceptable to God. With the sin offering, the taint of sin rendered all but certain parts of the sacrifice unacceptable (v. 14). The words “a sweet savour” express in characteristic human language the thought that God was well pleased with the offering and accepted the one presenting it (Gen. 8:21; Lev. 1:9, 13, 17).
19. The other ram. Literally, “the second ram” (see vs. 1, 3, 15). This is called the “ram of consecration” in v. 22, and was probably a “peace offering” (see Lev. 3).
20. Take of his blood. The application of the ram’s blood to the persons of the priests was unique and significant, the crowning act of consecration. This implied the complete dedication of life and ability to the service of God. Symbolically, the blood put on the “right ear” sanctified that organ to hear the word of the Lord; put on the “right hand,” it sanctified the hands of the priest for his mediatorial work; put on the “right foot,” it sanctified his walk of life as an example to others. In other words, the consecrated life (blood) of the sacrifice the priest had offered was returned to him, that his life might be devo ted to the service of the Lord.
21. Take of the blood. This “blood” and the “anointing” appear to be the only ritual required for the consecration of the common priests (Lev. 8:30). The blending of the blood and oil suggests the need of both justification through the atoning blood of Christ (Rom. 3:23-26) and sanctification through the grace of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:16).
22. The rump. Literally, “the fat tail,” that is, of the Oriental broadtail sheep (see on Lev. 3:9). The “cual” is the membrane mentioned in v. 13.
23. One loaf of bread. For the “loaf,” the “cake,” the “wafer,” and the “basket” see vs. 2, 3. Placing these offerings in the hands of Aaron and his sons, Moses was to take their hands in his and “wave” them in a swinging motion forward, probably to show that the offering belonged to God, and backward, to indicate that it was accepted by God and returned, so to speak, with His blessing. This was the act of consecration by which the actual installation in office took place. Moses thus transferred to his brother, and his brother’s sons, the priestly functions he himself had heretofore exercised. By physically waving their hands he guided them in the performance of their first priestly act.
25. Thou shalt receive them. Moses was nevertheless to complete the priestly ritual connected with the ceremony of consecration. Chosen parts of the peace offering were burned upon the altar of burnt offering (Ex. 29:22; Lev. 3:3-5). Here Moses waved the breast of the wave offering. Afterward Aaron and his descendants were to follow the same procedure in presenting such offerings (Lev. 7:31-35).
27. Sanctify the breast. Verses 27 and 28 apply to all future offerings for consecration. From this time forward the breast and right shoulder belonged to the priests. The shoulder was to be “heaved up” in a single lifting movement, as it were, toward heaven, and the breast was to be “waved” horizontally in a repeated swinging movement (Lev. 7:30-36; Num. 18:11).
29. The holy garments. Verses 29 and 30 also applied to future services of consecration. The garments made for Aaron were to be preserved after his death and used at the consecration of each successive high priest, that he too might be “anointed” and “consecrated in them.” From the time he began his duties, each high priest was to wear these garments for seven days (Ex. 29:35; Num. 20:24-28).
31. The ram. The portion of the ram that had not been burned (see vs. 22-25) was to be eaten “in the holy place,” that is, “at the door of the tabernacle” (Lev. 8:31). In connection with every peace offering there was a sacrificial meal, in which the priests who offered it participated (Ex. 29:27, 28; Lev. 7:11-18).
32. The bread. This consisted of the loaf, cake, and wafer that remained in the basket, after one of each had been taken from it and offered to the Lord (vs. 2, 3, 23).
33. They shall eat. Every sacrifice possessed, in greater or lesser degree, atoning quality. The sin offering was wholly so (Lev. 4:2-5), the burnt and the peace offerings only so in part (Lev. 1:3; 3:1).
A stranger. Not a foreigner, but one who is not a priest (cf. Ex. 12:19 and 20:10).
35. Seven days. The ritual of consecration for Aaron and his sons was to be performed on each of the seven successive days. This sevenfold consecration betokened ideal perfection (see Joshua 6:3, 4; 1 Kings 18:43, 44; 2 Kings 5:14). Since these priests are types of God’s ministers today, their consecration teaches the exalted sacredness of holy office and the need of preserving it separate from the world.
36. Cleanse the altar. More clearly, “thou shalt purify the altar by making an atonement for it.” This “sin offering” for the altar was the same bullock as that used for Aaron and his sons (see Ex. 29:1, 10-14; Lev. 8:15). Moses anointed the altar by sprinkling the anointing oil on it seven times (Lev. 8:11).
37. Seven days. The entire ceremony of consecration was to be repeated seven times, both for the priests and for the altar.
Most holy. Literally, “holy of holies,” denoting the great sacredness of the altar (see Ex. 40:10). Therefore “whatsoever toucheth” it “shall be” or must be, “holy.”
38. Two lambs. Verses 38-42 pertain to the daily sacrifice, which appropriately followed the consecration of the altar.
39. At even. Literally, “between the [two] evenings” (see on ch. 12:6). As to the purpose of these daily morning and evening sacrifices, see on Lev. 1:3. These “continual” (ch. 29:42) sacrifices were the occasions of morning and evening worship for the camp (Ps. 16:8; 55:17; 1 Thess. 5:17; PP 354).
40. A tenth deal. Rather, “a tenth part” or “a tenth measure,” that is an omer, or tenth of one ephah (Ex. 16:36; Num. 15:4, LXX). This would be the equivalent of about 2 qt. (2.2 l.), or about 3 lb. 12 oz. (1.7 kg.). Various cereals were used as a “meat offering” (see on Lev. 2:1). The “fourth part of an hin” would be equal to nearly 2 pt. (0.9 l.).
41. For a sweet savour. “A pleasing odor” (RSV). See on v. 18.
42. The tabernacle of the congregation. Preferably, “the tent of meeting” (RSV; see on ch. 27:21).
43. There I will meet. Knowing the trials of Israel in their wanderings through the wilderness, God encouraged them with the assurance of His presence. At its dedication the tabernacle was filled with the “glory” of the Lord (ch. 40:34). The presence of the Shekinah was the true consecration of the tabernacle, for all things else about it were but types and figures (see on Gen. 3:24). Thus God not only “put his name there” (Deut. 12:21), but His visible presence as well.
44. I will sanctify. This was accomplished miraculously when Aaron placed his first offering upon the brazen altar (Lev. 9:24).
45. Dwell among. See on ch. 25:8. This refers primarily to the Shekinah, in the holy of holies, but in a larger sense the same was true of God’s care, protection, and salvation graciously extended to His chosen people as the years went by.
1. An altar to burn incense. Among most ancient peoples it was customary to offer incense as a part of religious worship. In the early days of Christianity many believers in the gospel were put to death because they refused to put incense upon the altar of the gods. In the Scriptures, incense symbolizes prayer ascending from the altar of the heart up to God (Ps. 141:2; Luke 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3, 4).
2. Foursquare. The altar of incense was in many ways similar to the altar of burnt offering (ch. 27:1-8), though of smaller size and costlier material. In “length” and “breadth” it was 1 ft. 51/2 in. (44.45 cm.), “foursquare,” and 2 ft. 11 in. (88.9 cm.) in “height.” On the “horns” the blood of certain sin offerings was touched (Lev. 4:7, 18).
Of the same. That is, of one piece with the top of the altar. Since horns are symbolic of power (see on ch. 27:2), on the altar of incense they signify the power of prayer (see Gen. 32:24-30). The result of importunate prayer is emphasized in the parable of the importunate widow (Luke 18:3-8).
3. A crown of gold. This was a border, or molding, around the top to prevent anything from falling off, and also for beauty (ch. 25:24).
4. The two corners. Preferably, two opposite sides (RSV). In other words, there were but two rings, not four as on the other articles of furniture, but one on either side just below the “crown.” These were adequate for carrying so small an altar.
5. The staves. That is, the poles used to carry the altar (ch. 25:13, 28). Acacia wood symbolized strength, and gold, purity. Thus, prayer is to issue forth from the altar of the heart, a heart that is true, honest, and resolute.
6. Before the vail. The altar of incense was placed in the holy place, adjacent to the “vail,” or curtain, which separated it from the holy of holies (ch. 40:21-27). Although in the holy place, the altar of incense was considered as belonging to the most holy (Heb. 9:3, 4). This concept grew out of the fact that as the priests in their ministry approached the sacred presence above the mercy seat, the altar of incense was the place to which they came (PP 353). Except on the Day of Atonement they could not approach closer. It was the place where they came to meet with God, whose abode was in the holy of holies. Incense offered there not only filled the holy place, but rose and passed over the “vail” into the most holy (see on ch. 26:32). The fact that the altar was “before the mercy seat” teaches us that prayer brings us into the presence of God. Although the “vail” of humanity (see 1 Cor. 13:12) prevents our physical eyes from seeing God, faith and prayer are able to go where the body cannot.
7. Sweet incense. Or, “fragrant incense” (RSV). Verses 34-38 give its composition. Every morning immediately after daybreak the lamps were trimmed and cleaned by the priest (see on ch. 27:20).
8. Perpetual incense. Incense was to be offered twice daily, at the hours of morning and evening prayer (Ex. 30:7, 8). The altar of incense represented continual intercession in the same way that the altar of burnt offering represented continual atonement (PP 353). There is, however, no clear statement as to whether incense was burning continuously upon this altar “before the vail,” though the implication that it was is strong (PP 348). Its “continual” burning teaches us that day by day we are to come before the Lord in prayer (Ps. 16:8; 55:17; 1 Thess. 5:17, 18; PP 354). We are to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17).
9. Strange incense. That is, any incense prepared contrary to the directions given in vs. 34-38.
10. Once in a year. This refers to the great Day of Atonement, the 10th day of the 7th month, when the high priest was to take the blood and put it on the horns of the altar of incense “and make an atonement for it” (Lev. 16:18, 19). This did not make of it an altar of atonement. It was involved in atonement, however, in cases where the high priest sinned (see Lev. 4:3-12), or when the whole congregation committed iniquity “through ignorance” or did “somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord” (Lev. 4:13-21). Upon such occasions the high priest touched the blood of the sacrifice to the horns of the altar. In these two instances the altar of incense took the place of the altar of burnt offering, on which was sprinkled the blood of private sin offerings (Lev. 4:22-35). Of all articles of furniture in the tabernacle the altar of incense seems to have been next in importance to the ark and the mercy seat in sacredness. This suggests the great value God places upon prayer (see PP 353).
12. Takest the sum. Or, “take the census” (RSV). The population had been estimated at the time of the Exodus as “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children” (see on ch. 12:37). Now, a more accurate census was to be taken.
A ransom. Literally, “a covering,” in the same sense that insurance “covers” a man and releases him from further obligation. The people were obligated to God; they might discharge that obligation by paying the “ransom.” Their lives were considered forfeited to God until God’s claim upon them was met. In settling the claim they acknowledged God’s goodness and mercy.
For his soul. Rather, “for himself” (RSV), that is, for his “whole spirit and soul and body” (1 Thess. 5:23). This is obviously the meaning, for the statement is concerned with a living man, not with some immaterial part of his being or with a disembodied spirit.
No plague. That is, no punishment because of carelessness or disobedience.
13. Half a shekel. A half shekel would weight about one fifth of an ounce (5.7 gr.), and a gerah one tenth of that amount.
The shekel of the sanctuary. Probably a standard of weight, not a different kind of shekel.
14. Twenty years old. At this age the Israelite was considered to have reached manhood, to be eligible for military service (2 Chron. 25:5), and ready to assume the duties of citizenship. The Levites began their service in the tabernacle at this age 1 Chron. 23:24, 27; 2 Chron. 31:17; Ezra 3:8).
15. Not give more. This was a head, or poll, tax, and fell equally on every male 20 years of age or over. Being a relatively small sum, the tax would work hardship on no one. It was a minimum contribution to the sanctuary; many gave much more. Poverty was no excuse for doing nothing. The plan was eminently fair, and suggests the fact that all souls are of equal value in God’s sight (Deut. 10:17; Acts 10:34; Rom. 3:22). All have sinned, and to all God extends His grace. Note the significance “all we” with which Isa. 53:6 begins, and the “us all” with which it ends.
For your souls. Preferably, “for yourselves” (RSV; see on v. 12).
16. A memorial. For the disposition of the “atonement money,” see ch. 38:25-28. Becoming a permanent part of the sanctuary, it was a continual “memorial” to remind the people of their spiritual privileges and responsibilities.
For your souls. Preferably, “for yourselves” (RSV; see on v. 12).
18. A laver. Nothing is revealed regarding its size or shape. It was of bronze, made from the mirrors the women of Israel gave as a freewill offering (ch. 38:8). In Solomon’s Temple the “molten sea” and “ten lavers” replaced the original laver (1 Kings 7:23-26, 38). It stood on its “foot,” or base, in the court of the tabernacle between the entrance to the tabernacle and the altar of burnt offering. Typically, the laver represents the washing away of our sins through faith in the shed blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Rev. 7:14).
19. Wash. Washing the hands and the feet symbolized the reformation of the life. Because of the priests’ ablutions, the slaying of the sacrificial victims, and the sprinkling, pouring, and dashing of blood associated with various functions of the sanctuary service, the need for water is apparent (Ex. 29:4, 17; Lev. 1-5).
20. That they die not. These words were a warning that any violation of this charge due to carelessness or indifference would be punished most severely.
23. Principal spices. Spices played a great part in the lives of ancient peoples, and were of many different kinds. “Pure myrrh” is more accurately translated as “free-flowing myrrh,” or “liquid myrrh” (RSV), a spice that was in great demand. “Calamus” was probably an aromatic reed.
24. Cassia. An aromatic wood. The recipe called for 12.7 lb. (5.7 kg.) each of myrrh and cassia and 6.4 lb. (2.9 kg.) each of cinnamon and calamus.
An hin. These spices were to be mixed in 3.9 qt. (3.67 l.) of “oil olive.”
25. An ointment. This fragrant “compound” provided a delightful symbol of the fragrant “savour” of Christ’s righteousness, which is to be reflected in our lives (Ps. 45:6-8; S. of Sol. 3:6; Isa. 61:10; 2 Cor. 2:14-16).
26. Anoint the tabernacle. The material objects of the tabernacle were first to be anointed, the tabernacle itself, the furniture of the most holy place and the holy place, and the furniture of the court. The anointing of the priests came last (Lev. 8:10-12).
30. Anoint Aaron. When the environment in which Aaron and his sons were to minister had been sanctified, the priests themselves were consecrated to serve there. Similarly, Christ has ascended “to prepare a place” for us, which we shall receive when He comes again (John 14:1-3).
32. Upon man’s flesh. That is, none of the sacred oil was to be used by anyone as a common ointment. It was to be reserved exclusively for sacred use. Nor was the same formula to be used for any other purpose, though of course the same ingredients might be used separately or in other combinations.
34. Sweet spices. Verses 34-38 give directions for making the “sweet incense” that was to be burned on the golden altar (v. 7). It was a blend of four kinds of spices, in equal proportions. “Stacte,” “galbanum,” and “frankincense” were all gums, or resins, whereas the “onycha” seems to have been derived from a certain shell mollusk.
35. Tempered together. Rather, “seasoned with salt” (RSV). The fact that coals for the altar of incense were brought from the altar of burnt offering (see Lev. 16:12, 13) points to the truth that the heart of the worshiper must be reconciled to God before God will accept his prayers and devotion (Job 27:8, 9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 15:29; 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Micah 3:4; John 9:31).
36. Beat some of it. A small supply of the preparation was to be beaten from time to time, as required, and placed perhaps on the golden altar “before the testimony,” that is, opposite the ark but before the inner veil. This nearness to the divine presence made it “most holy.”
37. Ye shall not make. The prohibition and penalty connected with the anointing oil (vs. 32, 33) applies also to the incense.
2. I have called. Having given detailed directions for the construction of the tabernacle and its equipment, and the preparation of its supplies, God next appointed those who were to have the oversight of the work. Bezaleel was to be in charge, with Aholiab as his assistant. Without doubt these men were selected because of their superior talent and previous experience. To this God promised to add special wisdom and knowledge. Thus they were fitted both naturally and supernaturally for their task (see PP 214; DA 827; Matt. 13:12). Gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and skill for doing secular work are as surely given men by God as are spiritual gifts 1 Cor. 12:8). The church as verily needs among its members those who are Bezaleels and Aholiabs as it does those who are Isaiahs and Pauls. Only those whom God calls to some special service does he “call by name” (Ex. 3:4; Isa. 45:1-4).
3. Filled him. The Holy Spirit would impart to Bezaleel “knowledge,” or factual information, “understanding,” or common sense in the application of known facts, and “wisdom,” or discernment, sound judgment, and discretion. In addition he was to receive additional skill in “workmanship,” including both dexterity and art as a master craftsman.
4. To devise. He was to have not only the gift of creating designs but the ability to execute these designs. While specific directions were given Moses for the construction of the sanctuary and its equipment, nothing had been said concerning many details, such as the form of the cherubim, the patterns to be woven or embroidered in the various textiles, the shapes of the vessels, the capitals of the pillars, or the laver. Much would depend upon the initiative, inventiveness, taste, and craftsmanship of those in charge of the work.
6. Aholiab. It seems from ch. 38:23 that Aholiab was to superintend the design and production of the textile fabrics, including both weaving and embroidery. It is interesting to note that Hiram, the chief artist Solomon employed to make the ornamental work of the Temple, was also a descendant of Dan (2 Chron. 2:13, 14).
In the hearts. Every artist, whether he be poet, painter, sculptor, musician, or designer, must have within him a natural talent, without which he can never attain to excellence. Such gifts should be regarded as a sacred trust from God, to be used for His glory and for the betterment of mankind—not for the advancement of self. Failing this, one’s great ability may contribute only to moral depravity. Manual labor was sanctified by God for the construction of the tabernacle. Our Lord dignified physical labor by devoting most of His years on earth to the carpenter shop in Nazareth (see Mark 6:3). Paul supported himself by working as a tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3).
10. Cloths. Or, “finely worked garments” (RSV). These were the distinguishing vestments of the high priest, which he alone was permitted to wear. They included the blue robe, the ephod, the girdle of the ephod, and the breastplate. The other “holy garments” that made up the high priest’s attire were the linen drawers, the tunic, the inner girdle, and the miter. The “garments of his sons” included their linen drawers, tunics, girdles, and caps (ch. 28).
13. My sabbaths. One of the striking features of the closing chapters of Exodus is the recurring admonition to sacred observance of the seventh-day Sabbath (see chs. 16:22-30; 20:8-11; 23:12; 34:21; 35:2, 3). This attests the great importance of the Sabbath, for no other commandment of the Decalogue is so mentioned. The reference here made to its observance is not merely a repetition of similar notices; it introduces the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and His people, and it warns that the penalty for Sabbath violation is “death.”
A sign. God had already given the Israelites circumcision as a “sign” in their flesh of His “covenant” relation with them (Gen. 17:9-14; Acts 7:8). Now the Sabbath was to be an additional “sign” of this covenant relationship, not in the flesh but in the heart (Ex. 31:12, 13, 16, 17; Jer. 31:31-33; Eze. 20:12, 20; 2 Cor. 3:3).
14. Defileth it. More exactly, “profanes it.” The Sabbath is holy (Gen. 2:1-3); therefore it is a sin to bring into its sacred hours that which is common (see on Ex. 12:16; 16:23). The Sabbath is defiled when any unnecessary work is done upon it. Acts of mercy, of necessity, or of religious observance are not forbidden on that day (Matt. 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28).
Put to death. This severe penalty was a constant reminder that Sabbath violation severed the covenant relation between the Lord and the people. The Sabbath was the distinctive sign of loyalty to God, and its violation was therefore an offense of the gravest character, an act of treason against the divine government (see Ex. 35:2; Num. 15:32-36).
15. Sabbath of rest. Literally, “rest of restfulness” (see on chs. 16:23-26; 20:10). This expression implies complete rest from all secular concerns (Ex. 35:2; Lev. 23:3; Isa. 58:13).
17. Was refreshed. The very fact that God uses language here distinctly adapted to human experience shows how earnestly He desired to impress upon His people their obligation to Him and the need of their following His example. There can be no more convincing reason for complying with a divine command than that God Himself has set the example (John 13:13-15; 1 Peter 2:21).
18. Two tables of testimony. God had informed Moses that the ark in the holy of holies was to contain this “testimony” (ch. 25:16). Since this was the chief purpose of the ark, and the ark was the most sacred article of furniture in the tabernacle, it is appropriate that this section dealing with the structure of the tabernacle and its officiants should close with a statement regarding that which gave the ark and the tabernacle their significance. “Two tables” should be “the two tables,” those which God had already promised Moses (ch. 24:12), and which were supernaturally inscribed (ch. 32:16). The writing of the Ten Commandments on stone (Deut. 4:13) points to their immutable and eternal character (Matt. 5:17-19). The two tables emphasize man’s obligation—to God (the first four commandments), and to his fellow men (the last six; Matt. 22:36-40). The two tables of stone folded together like a book (EW 32).
Unto Aaron. Had the brother of Moses been strong in faith and character, this unfortunate incident in the history of Israel might have been avoided. Aaron’s weakness of character and spirit of compromise not only rendered his spiritual leadership ineffective but placed him in the position of a leader in rebellion.
Make us gods. Inasmuch as their sojourn in Egypt had accustomed the Hebrews to material forms of deity, it was difficult for them to trust in an invisible God. Though the word for “gods” in Hebrew is ’Elohim, the plural form of the word, some Bible scholars affirm that “gods” here and in vs. 4, 8, and 31 should be translated “a god,” considering that the plural is used intensively to emphasize the fact that the golden calf was a false god in contrast to the Lord, the true God.
Go before us. Weary of waiting so long at Sinai and eager to continue their journey to the Promised Land, the people demanded a visible god at their head to inspire them with confidence and courage (see 1 Sam. 4:3-8). How well it would have been had they used this period of waiting in meditation upon the law of God, and thus prepared their hearts to receive further revelations from Him. Had they done so they would have been able to resist this temptation. To a large extent the spirit of apostasy was generated by the “mixed multitude,” who had joined the Israelites to escape the plagues of Egypt. They were a constant hindrance and a snare to Israel (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4). They are to be compared to the “lewd fellows” of Acts 17:5.
2. Break off. Alarmed by the heedless folly and threatening attitude of the people, and fearing for his own safety, Aaron surrendered to the demands of the multitude instead of nobly and stoutheartedly upholding the honor of God (see ch. 23:2). Hoping they would refuse to give up their cherished possessions, he ordered a collection of the “golden earrings.” But he was mistaken in this hope. Having taken the first compromising step, he could not retreat.
4. These be thy gods. The “calf” would naturally suggest itself to the Israelites because they had witnessed in Egypt the worship of Apis the bull. But the golden calf was presumably a material representation of the true God, not of some heathen deity (see v. 5).
5. Made proclamation. Sensing popular approval, Aaron further committed himself to this apostasy by announcing a “feast.” Strangely enough, it was to be “a feast to the Lord.” This spirit of compromise, the endeavor to harmonize the worship of the Lord with that of idols, was not manifested by Israel in this case alone; it was also to motivate much of the idolatry that plagued them in the future (1 Kings 12:26-33; 2 Kings 17:32, 33; Zeph. 1:5).
6. Rose up early. So enthusiastic and wrought up were the people over their new-found religion that they could not rise early enough to begin its worship.
Sat down to eat. Only certain portions of sacrificial victims were commonly burned, the rest being eaten by the offerers.
Rose up to play. This was a sensual exercise. Heathen sacrificial feasts terminated in the most profligate orgies (Num. 25:1-9; 1 Cor. 10:7, 8). This episode illustrates the warfare that is constantly going on in human nature between the flesh and the Spirit (Rom. 7:23; 8:1-13). From the time the Israelites left Egypt they had been leading a spiritual life, depending upon the unseen God and reposing under His protection. At length, however, when the restraining influence of Moses’ example and guidance was removed, evil prevailed. They reverted to idolatry, and in so doing, to the licentiousness that was inseparably connected with heathen worship. Sensual pleasure masqueraded as religion (2 Tim. 3:4, 5). Such religion is as pleasing to the multitudes now as it was in the days of Israel. And there are still pliant leaders to yield to the desires of the unconsecrated and encourage them in sin (PP 317).
7. Thy people. God disowned Israel; He no longer spoke of them as “my people” (Ex. 3:10; etc.; cf. Matt. 21:13; 23:28). They had broken their covenant relation with Him, and had “separated” themselves from His care and guidance (Isa. 59:2). Resentment against sin is inherent in the divine character. God loves the sinner, but hates sin. Moses, far removed from the camp, did not know what was going on below.
8. Turned aside quickly. A few weeks previously the people had entered into a solemn covenant with God and pledged themselves to obey Him (chs. 19:8; 24:3). Now that covenant was broken (PP 320). Having “no root” in themselves when temptation came, the people fell quickly into sin (see Matt. 13:20, 21). Many of them, specially those of the “mixed multitude,” could not resist their old idolatrous practices (see 2 Peter 2:22). The word “stiffnecked” conveys the idea of perversity, as with a horse that stiffens its neck when the driver pulls the rein right or left, refusing to go the way it should.
10. Let me alone. God was testing Moses and preparing him for what lay ahead (see Gen. 18:23-32; 32:26-28). This was not the last occasion on which such an experience came to him (Num. 16:21, 45). Moses perceived that God’s proposal was not final, and proceeded to intercede for his people.
Make of thee. The Lord confronted Moses with an opportunity to choose between his own glory, and the honor of God and the well-being of those who were under his charge (see Matt. 4:8-10). He rose nobly to the occasion and thereby proved his loyal devotion to God and to the tasks committed to him.
11. Moses besought. Moses protests that Israel is still God’s people—not his (see v. 7). God has done so much for them; surely He will not now reject them, and thereby acknowledge the failure of His own plan. That God could not afford to do this, for His own name’s sake, was Moses’ first plea. Moses could not excuse the sin of his people, but he could intercede for their forgiveness (see Job 42:10; Jer. 14:19-21; Eze. 14:14, 20; Dan. 9:4-11).
12. Wherefore. The surrounding nations had learned of the wonderful deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt, and as a result they feared what the Lord might yet do for Israel. If, therefore, Israel were now destroyed, the heathen would rejoice and God would be dishonored. The accusations of the Egyptians would prove true, that instead of leading His people into the wilderness to sacrifice (ch. 5:1-3), He had brought them there to be sacrificed (ch. 10:10). To avoid the exultant triumph of the heathen over Israel was Moses’ second plea.
13. Remember Abraham. The third plea consisted of reminding God of His promises to Abraham (Gen. 15:5; 17:2-8), Isaac (Gen. 26:4), and Jacob (Gen. 28:14; 35:11). These promises had thus far been but partially fulfilled, and surely God would not fail to make good His word.
14. The Lord repented. The Lord was moved by the earnest, selfless prayer of His faithful servant. God could not refuse the pleadings of one who thought more of his people than he did of his own exaltation and honor. What a tribute this was to the character of Moses, what a revelation of divine love (John 3:16; Phil. 2:5-8).
The words “the Lord repented” are a feeble attempt to express the divine will in human language. Strictly speaking, God cannot change His purpose, for He knows “the end from the beginning” (1 Sam. 15:29; Isa. 46:9, 10; 55:11). However, when sinners forsake their sin and turn to Him, when His children supplicate Him for mercy and forgiveness, then He does “repent.” He changes from wrath to mercy, from judgment to gracious pardon (Ps. 106:44, 45; Jer. 18:5-10; 26:3; Joel 2:12-14; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2).
15. In his hand. That is, in both hands (Deut. 9:15).
17. When Joshua heard. In his descent Moses met Joshua, who remained where Moses had left him six weeks previously (see ch. 24:12-18). Together they made their way down to camp. Being a soldier, Joshua thought the sound they heard from the encampment was that of war, but Moses, having been warned by the Lord that something was wrong, suspected the true nature of the noise. The latter part of the descent from Mt. Sinai denies a view of the plain below, so that any sound coming from the plain would be heard before its cause could be seen. Perhaps the mounds at the foot of the mountain provided a barrier to the sight (see on ch. 19:1).
19. He came nigh. The religious ceremonies of most ancient nations included dancing. Among the Hebrews this was sometimes solemn and dignified, like that of David (2 Sam. 6:14), sometimes festive and joyful (see on Ex. 15:20). Among the heathen, however, and especially so among the Oriental nations, such dances were of a loose and lascivious character. Egyptian dancers were professionals of a degraded type, and their dancing was sensual and indecent. In Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylon dancing was a wild orgy. It was in this type of dancing that the Israelites now indulged, a fact which accounts for the heated anger of Moses. It was idolatry at its worst. It is not strange that he cast the two tables violently upon the ground and “brake them.” By this he indicated that as they had broken their covenant with God, so God broke His covenant with them (Deut. 9:17; PP 320).
20. He took the calf. Compare this with similar action by Josiah (2 Kings 23:1-27).
Strawed it. That is, “sprinkled” or “scattered” it. Since this “water” was “the brook” that descended out of the mount (Deut. 9:21), and was the only water available, when the Israelites drank it they risked swallowing particles of gold. Thus it was that the instrument of their sin became also the instrument of their punishment. Sin repays in its own coin (Ps. 7:15, 16; 9:15; Prov. 1:31, 32; 5:22). In completely destroying the golden calf, Moses taught the people the utter futility and nothingness of an idol (1 Cor. 8:4). If the calf could not save itself, it certainly could not save its worshipers (Ps. 115:3-9; Isa. 46:5-7).
21. Unto Aaron. Having destroyed the idol, Moses naturally turned to the one who had been left in charge of the people and who, therefore, should have resisted and halted this apostasy (ch. 24:14). Moses did not mean to imply that the people had done anything to Aaron; the question was asked in reproach, as a rebuke. Had Aaron taken a firm stand this iniquity might not have occurred (PP 316, 317).
22. Thou knowest. Instead of humbly accepting the responsibility for their idolatry, Aaron justified himself by placing the blame for it upon the people. In doing so he proved himself a true descendant of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:12, 13). What a contrast to the spirit of Moses (see on Ex. 32:10-14, 32).
24. There came out. To further justify his course Aaron implied that a miracle had occurred, that supernatural power had converted the gold cast “into the fire” into “this calf.” The bewitching power of sin causes otherwise sound-minded men to engage in a rationalization of their course of action. Aaron would have been destroyed for his sin had it not been for the earnest intercession of Moses in his behalf (Deut. 9:20). Because of his position as leader, in the absence of Moses, Aaron’s iniquity was the more reprehensible. To whom God grants much, of him is much expected (Luke 12:48).
25. Were naked. Or possibly, “had broken loose.” That is, the people were giving free rein to their wild passions. Moral restraint had been completely abandoned. The people were practically in a state of riot, having worked themselves up to a frenzy. They had become a wild mob. Aaron was responsible for the orgy, for he had made the calf and proclaimed the feast.
Their shame. Perhaps some of the Amalekites (see Ex. 17:8-16) were still in the vicinity to witness this riotous occasion and its licentious indecencies.
26. Then Moses stood. Failing to stop this vile demonstration, and realizing that something must be done, Moses stationed himself at “the gate of the camp” and summoned those who would do so to join him in quelling the disturbance. In the warfare between good and evil there is no such thing as neutrality. We are either on God’s side or on Satan’s. There is no middle ground (Joshua 24:14, 15; 1 Kings 18:21; Matt. 6:24). The ultimate test of being on the Lord’s side is to remain faithful when those around us are apostatizing. Weak character sides with the multitude (Matt. 7:13, 14). Determined piety reveals itself in being able to resist the contagion of numbers. It takes courage to be singular (see Dan. 3:14-18). Alone among their brethren, the “sons of Levi” rallied to “the Lord’s side.” They had not participated in the idolatrous worship.
27. Every man his sword. Wherever the Levites saw any still persisting in the licentious rites they were to “slay” them with the sword, ignoring every tie of family and friendship (Deut. 33:8, 9; Eze. 9:6). Resolute action was necessary to quell rebellion. Jesus made it plain that no earthly ties are to be allowed to stand between us and our duty to Him (Matt. 8:21, 22; 10:37). Thus it was that the place of feasting became the place of death. This summary execution of those who led out in idolatry among the people was necessary to prove to the surrounding nations the definite displeasure of God against heathen worship. As to His own people, the Lord had to convince them that iniquity such as this would not be tolerated. Had God permitted this offense to pass without severe punishment, in the future the Jews would have the more readily yielded to the temptations of idolatry. As the loving protector of Israel, God removed from them those determined to go their own rebellious way, lest they lead others to ruin. These are times when God in His mercy permits the few to perish in order to save the many. Furthermore, if sin had persisted God could no longer have protected them and they would have fallen, defenseless, before their enemies.
29. Consecrate yourselves. Moses pronounces the favor of Heaven upon the Levites, who so heartily joined with him in the punishment of the idolaters. The Hebrew word for “consecration” carries with it the idea of being ordained to a holy office. Here it implies, also, the special “blessing” God had in store for the Levites, the honor of being chosen to serve in the sanctuary (Num. 3:5-9; 18:1-7; Deut. 10:8).
30. On the morrow. This suggests that the people had at last realized their great guilt and were terrified lest every offender be slain. Moses’ love and pity toward his people led him to intercede with the Lord again on their behalf. There is a profound lesson here that ministers of the gospel should ponder well. While, as pastors of the flock, they should love their members and draw them close to God, they must not fail to show the people their transgressions (Isa. 58:1). At the same time they must plead earnestly with God for the forgiveness of sin through the mercy of Christ.
31. This people. Moses had spoken to God of the Israelites as “thy people” (v. 11). Here, thinking of the gravity of the sin which made them unworthy to be called the people of God, he refers to them as “this people.”
32. If thou wilt forgive. So moved was Moses in his appeal to God that he did not complete the first, the conditional, part of it. This omission might have been, “Then I shall be content,” or “I shall have no more to say.” Similar omissions are found in Luke 13:9; 19:42.
Blot me. So great was Moses’ love for his erring brethren that, if he could not prevent their destruction, he did not want to see it (see Num. 11:15). He was willing not to be “written among the living” (see Isa. 4:3). He was willing to surrender his own life, if that would serve to atone for their sin. He was willing to bear their guilt, here and in the hereafter, in order to secure their forgiveness. Paul manifested similar unselfishness toward the Jews of his day (Rom. 9:1-3). Moses performed many noble acts, but this was the noblest of them all. It is not easy to estimate the measure of love in such men as Moses and Paul, for our limited powers of reason do not comprehend it any more than a little child is able to comprehend the courage of heroes. Moses is a type of the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15), who was “cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression” of His people (Isa. 53:8; Dan. 9:26; John 15:13).
Out of thy book. This refers to the “book of life,” in which are recorded the names of all those who have professed to be children of God (Ps. 69:28; Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). Those who fall away from God, who because of their unwillingness to forsake sin become hardened against the influence of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 6:3; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:29; 1 Thess. 5:19), will have their names blotted out of the book of life, and be destroyed.
33. Whosoever hath sinned. In general, the Bible teaches that everyone must bear his own punishment (Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ps. 49:7, 8; Jer. 31:29, 30; Eze. 18:20). There is only one substitutionary atonement that the Word of God accepts, and that is the atonement of Jesus Christ, who, being without sin, could be punished for the sins of others (Isa. 53:5, 6; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24). In interceding as he did for Israel, Moses typified the intercession of Christ for sinners. But he could not, as did our Lord, bear the guilt of the transgressors.
34.In the day when I visit. It has been suggested that this refers to the declaration that none of those who had left Egypt would enter Canaan (Num. 14:26-35).
35. The Lord plagued. After the slaying of the 3,000 (v. 28) a plague had broken out in the camp. Even this was an evidence of divine mercy to emphasize the danger of yielding to sin. Though God was willing to forgive His people, if pardon were too easily obtained they would be emboldened to commit transgression again. They must be made sensible to the evil effects of iniquity. Comfort was postponed that conviction might be the more deeply impressed.
In all of God’s dealings with us today we should study to understand His divine purpose and to learn the lessons He designs that we should learn. It is thus that He would develop and strengthen character.
1. Depart. This reaffirms what the Lord told Moses in ch. 32:34, after Moses’ plea that God would forgive the people’s sin in making the golden calf. God would remain true to the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:7; 26:3; 28:13).
3. Unto a land. This continues the thought of v. 1, v. 2 being parenthetical. In love God tells Israel it is best that He not go with them. Should they again violate His covenant, His direct presence would mean their complete destruction. There are times when God in mercy withdraws from us. He never forces Himself upon us (Matt. 13:53-58).
4. They mourned. The Israelites began to realize what separation from the Lord meant. “An angel” seemed not to promise the assurance that God Himself could give. There was deep sorrow for their transgression. Repentance is an indispensable condition for restoration to divine favor, for there can be no salvation without it (Luke 13:5; Acts 3:19; Rev. 2:5, 16). In penitence and humiliation the people “put off” their “ornaments.” The removal of ornaments implies mourning and reformation (Gen. 35:4; Eze. 26:16). The men were probably wearing armlets, bracelets, and anklets. The latter were worn by men in Egypt.
5. I will come up. In response to Israel’s apparent repentance God assured them that they would not be utterly forsaken. His seeming reluctance to accept their change of heart was due to the fact that repentance had not as yet gone deep enough (see Hosea 6:4; 7:8, 14-16). By delay it was God’s purpose to create in their hearts a deeper longing for fellowship with Him (see Joel 2:12, 13; Hosea 10:12; DA 200).
6. By the mount Horeb. Literally, “from the mount Horeb.” Or, “from Mount Horeb onward” (RSV). This implies that the Israelites discontinued the use of ornaments, for a time at least, in token of their sincere purpose to obey God.
7. Took the tabernacle. This was a tent used temporarily, until completion of the more permanent “tent of meeting” (PP 327). Moses could not always be ascending Mt. Sinai to meet with God, for the camp needed his superintending care, especially at this time. The fact that the tent was moved “afar off from the camp” symbolized the removal of God’s presence from the people, because of their iniquity.
Tabernacle of the congregation. Preferably, “the tent of meeting.” Here those who desired to return to the Lord could come in true repentance, confessing their sins and seeking God’s mercy.
8. When Moses went out. In fear and trembling the Israelites centered their attention upon the tent of meeting to see whether God would receive their representative and grant them a sign of reinstatement to His favor. The very fact that the withdrawal of God’s presence was so keenly felt by the people gave promise of genuine repentance.
9. The cloudy pillar. This sign, now familiar to the people, was evidence to them that the Lord would continue to be their guide and protector (ch. 13:21, 22).
12. See, thou sayest. Verses 12 and 13 are an example of the intimate way in which Moses talked with God (Num. 12:8). Friendship with God gives men boldness in approaching Him, for true friendship casts out fear (Heb. 4:15, 16; 1 John 4:18). Moses earnestly desired full information as to what the Lord intended to do with His people, and who would be appointed to lead them. Moses felt the Lord would surely reveal this if, as He had said, Moses now “found grace” in His sight. Moses reminded God that “this nation is thy people,” so implying God’s responsibility toward them.
14. My presence. The request of Moses is granted. God’s own presence would go with them, and also give them “rest,” that is, possession of the land of Canaan (Deut. 3:20; 12:9, 10; 25:19; Heb. 4:8).
15. If thy presence. Moses was not yet satisfied. God had said, literally, “I will give rest to thee” (singular), which seemed to confine the blessing only to Moses. With this Moses was not content; the promise must also embrace “thy people.”
16. Be separated. That is, distinct from all other nations. God’s presence was with them, and they were His people (ch. 19:5, 6).
17. I will do this thing. God agreed to Moses’ plea. Moses’ “effectual fervent prayer” had availed “much” (James 5:16). He did not “faint,” and his petition was granted (Luke 18:1). Importunate prayers, especially those on behalf of others, are a demonstration of faith. Such were those of Abraham for Sodom (Gen. 18:23-33), Daniel for his people (Dan. 9:4-19), and Christ for His disciples (John 17).
I know thee by name. Moses was a personal friend of God. In Oriental lands even more than in the West, personal acquaintance serves to open doors that would otherwise remain closed.
18. Shew me thy glory. Though God had graciously answered his prayers in behalf of Israel, Moses longed for further evidence of divine favor. He had already been in the very presence of God on repeated occasions, but a solemn realization of the task that was his made him feel the need of an even closer fellowship with God. This led to a request that no man had made hitherto, something Moses felt would be a strength to him in his appointed task. He had asked much for his people; it was not inappropriate that he should now ask for himself assurance that his labors would meet with success. He knew well that no earthly power could take the place of God’s abiding presence and of the knowledge that comes from personal fellowship with Him (Jer. 9:23, 24).
Too often it is a guilty conscience that makes us shrink from the presence of the Lord of life. So it was with our first parents when they “hid themselves” (Gen. 3:8). It was because the life of Moses was in harmony with the will of his Maker that he stood in the presence of the Lord and was not afraid. The more a man knows of God, the more he longs to know. In the divine presence there is “fullness of joy,” and at His “right hand” there are “pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:11).
19. I will make. What may appear to have been presumption was not so in the case of Moses. Mutual love and respect drew both Creator and creature together.
My goodness. Literally, “my beauty” or “my excellence.” The LXX has “my glory.”
20. Thou canst not see. If at the appearance of one angel the Roman soldiers at the tomb of the risen Christ “became as dead men” (Matt. 28:4), what might be expected when sinful man is ushered into the very presence of God? Jacob marveled when he saw God “face to face” and yet lived (Gen. 32:30).
21. There is a place. Traditions as to the exact location of this place are without value. The event must have occurred somewhere on the upper part of the mountain.
22. Cover thee. The various precautions here mentioned were for the purpose of protecting Moses. Man has never seen the Lord’s face (John 1:18; 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 4:12). There is no lack of harmony between these texts, which state that no man has seen God’s face, and the many texts that tell us that God walked among men in the person of Jesus Christ and was seen by multitudes (see 1 John 1:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:16; etc.). In the first group of texts the Bible writers are speaking of God in His undimmed Glory; in the second, of God as “manifest in the flesh,” and thus with His glory hidden. Chapter 33 opens with man disheartened and depressed by virtue of being distant from God, and ends with man assured and strengthened by being drawn close to the divine presence.
1. Hew thee two tables. Literally, “Hew for thyself.” Because Moses broke the former tables (ch. 32:19), which “were the work of God” (ch. 32:16), he is now appropriately charged to hew a second set himself. The writing, of course, was that of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4). Moses had not asked for a new set of tables, but simply for the return of God’s favor and the renewal of the covenant. But God could not grant His favor without requiring obedience to His law. The two are inseparable. Men are more willing to enjoy the rewards of right living than they are to live right. But God insists that the rewards can be bestowed only upon the obedient. He can enter into covenant relation only with those who are willing to accept His law as their rule of life. This He does for their sake rather than for His own.
The repeated writing of the law upon tables of stone proves it to be eternal and unalterable (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:2; James 2:8-12; 1 John 2:3, 4; 5:2, 3). Moses was called upon to repair the loss of the two tables of the law caused by his own action. So it is with us if we break God’s law; we cannot hope for a return to divine favor unless we again place ourselves in the way of full obedience. Theft brings the duty of restitution; insult, that of apology; slander, that of retraction.
2. In the morning. The delay gave Moses time to prepare the new tables of stone.
3. And no man. Not even Joshua was to accompany Moses (cf. chs. 24:13; 32:15-17). The instructions upon this occasion were more stringent than those previously given (see ch. 19:12, 13).
5. The Lord descended. The “cloudy pillar” which had been at the door of the tent of meeting (ch. 33:10) ascended the mountain, and when Moses reached the top of the mount it stood with him there.
6. The Lord passed by. As promised in ch. 33:22, 23. The name of the Lord stands for His character, here described as consisting of three fundamental qualities—mercy, justice, and truth. Greatest emphasis is placed upon mercy because God’s relationship to us is based upon it (1 John 4:7-12). It was particularly important at this time when divine favor had been forfeited and would not have been restored, except for His mercy. There are six different ways in which the Lord manifests love for His people. He is “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” A more complete declaration of His regard and love for sinners would be difficult to imagine. When the Lord revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush He declared Himself to be the “I am,” or, “the self-existent One,” thus emphasizing the distinct difference between Him and all other gods.
In the present state of Israel’s sorrow and subdued spirit (Ex. 33:4-6), something additional was needed to impart to them hope and assurance. Of itself the law could not be “merciful and gracious.” Its sole stress was upon rectitude. There was needed a supplementary revelation of the gracious character of God to Moses. In the revelation of the character of God to Moses, Sinai proclaims not only the divine law but also divine grace. This fact proves unfounded the popular notion that Sinai stands for justice but not mercy. Sinai’s exalted proclamation of grace by no means annulled the law and thwarted divine justice; rather it clarified the relationship of each to the other. In a later crisis Moses reminded God of the balance between justice and mercy proclaimed upon this occasion (Num. 14:11-19).
Is this same unchanging character of God that gives poor, helpless sinners hope of eternal life today (Ps. 103:8-14; 145:8; Jer. 29:11; 31:3). Inasmuch as there can be no trust in one who is not true, God qualifies for our trust by being “abundant” in “truth.” Truth lies at the root of moral character; it is the precise opposite of hypocrisy (Ps. 108:4; 117:2; John 14:6; James 3:14).
7. Clear the guilty. God is gracious to repentant sinners, but He cannot afford to weaken His government by failing to uphold its righteousness and justice (Ps. 85:10; 89:14). God’s justice is an essential part of His nature no less than His mercy; without it God could not be God. Justice is, as has been argued, a necessary consequence of His true love, for “a God all mercy is a God unjust.” Without justice there could be no mercy. Although we read in the Bible that God delights in mercy (Micah 7:18), we never read in the Scriptures that God delights in bringing His judgments upon men. On the contrary, His judgments are said to be a “strange work” (Isa. 28:21). His loving-kindness is abundant (Isa. 55:7; Rom. 5:20). It is God’s mercy that moderates His judgments and makes Him “longsuffering” (Lam. 3:22; Rom. 2:4).
That divine love determines the attitude of God toward His children is clear from the greater space here allotted it in the description of His character and by the fact that the attributes of mercy precede the attributes of justice. Not only is God loving; “God is love” (1 John 4:16). The attribute of love is a veritable part of His essential nature; without it He would not be “God.” When the Lord must punish us for our sins, He does it in love, for our own good—not in anger. Like the surgeon, God may use the cutting knife of sorrow to effect the healing of the soul’s disease or injury that has resulted from sin (Heb. 12:5-11; Rev. 3:19).
9. If now. Greatly strengthened in faith and courage by the proclamation of the divine character, and confident of the grace of God, Moses entreats the Lord to exercise His grace, to “pardon our iniquity” and to restore the broken covenant. Perhaps Moses’ dim spiritual insight failed to discern that God had promised all of this the day before (ch. 33:17).
10. I make a covenant. God’s willingness to renew His covenant with Israel evinces two facts: (1) His faithfulness toward His people, because of His promises to their fathers, and (2) the conquering power of intercessory prayer. Additional pledges not mentioned previously are given, such as the performance of miracles, the enlargement of their borders, and security against invasion (v. 24). The blessings of cooperation with God are infinitely beyond finite comprehension (Eph. 3:20).
Do marvels. These were to include the drying up of the Jordan River (Joshua 3:14-17), the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:15-21), and the slaughter of their enemies by hailstones (Joshua 10:1-11).
A terrible thing. Not to be done to Israel but to their enemies (Deut. 10:21; Ps. 106:22; 145:6).
11. Observe thou. This is not a specific reference to the Ten Commandments, which were enjoined anew by being rewritten upon two new tables (v. 28). This “command” includes the injunctions listed in vs. 12-26. It is to be observed that the increased benefits of God are to be balanced by the people’s acceptance of greater obligation. Every victory over sin brings with it a clearer vision of God, greater opportunities, and increased responsibilities.
13. Destroy their altars. This comprehends more than the corresponding command in the “book of the covenant” (ch. 23:24), which mentions “images” only. Regarding these “altars” see Num. 23:1, 29, 30; Judges 2:2; 1 Kings 16:32; 18:26.
Their groves. From ’asherim. The “groves” seem to have been wooden cult objects in the form of truncated trees. These stumps of trees, possibly with the stubs of some branches still in place, were objects of worship. The well-known sacred tree of the Assyrians was probably an ’asherah.
15. Lest thou make. The evil results of making treaties with the Canaanite nations (v. 12; ch. 23:32, 33), joining in idol feasts and marrying heathen wives (Judges 2:2, 11-13), are here vividly stated. Inasmuch as the Lord claimed His people as His bride, idolatry was regarded as adultery (Jer. 3:1-5; Eze. 16; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2). “Molten gods” are expressly referred to because of the recent sin of the golden calf.
21. Earning time. That is, plowing time. In Old English, “to ear” meant “to plow.” Inasmuch as the times of plowing and of harvest were the seasons of greatest temptation to violate the Sabbath, the charge is repeated here.
22. The feast of weeks. At first sight it would appear that three distinct feasts are mentioned here. However, since the feast of “firstfruits of wheat harvest” is the same as the “feast of weeks” (Lev. 23:15-17; Num. 28:26), there are but two. Both were commanded in the “book of the covenant” (Ex. 23:16).
24. Enlarge thy borders. The first promise of land made to Abraham and his seed is recorded in Gen. 12:5-7. Later this promise was widened to include the whole area between the “river of Egypt” and the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18; 1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chron. 9:26).
Beholding the incomparable superiority of Israel to all other nations, many would voluntarily unite themselves with God’s chosen people. Thus Israel’s borders would be enlarged until, eventually, “their kingdom should embrace the world” (COL 290). Jerusalem itself would stand forever (GC 19) and would become the metropolis of the entire earth (DA 577).
26. The first of the firstfruits. The best insurance against falling into idolatry was to be continuing participation in the spirit and practice of true worship as prescribed by God. Faithful and proper regard for the Sabbath, the great annual festivals, the laws of redemption, the various sacrifices, and similar institutions ordained to lead to spiritual consecration would protect them from the temptations and dangers of heathenism they would encounter in the Land of Promise.
Shalt not seethe. See on ch. 23:19. The closing part of this section is parallel to the last section in the “book of the covenant” (ch. 23:19).
27. These words. That is, those of vs. 10-26.
After the tenor. That is, “in harmony with these words.” God would perform His side of the contract if the people would faithfully carry out theirs.
28. Forty days. This duplicated the length of time of Moses’ former stay in the mount (ch. 24:18). On this occasion the people successfully met the test occasioned by the absence of Moses (see ch. 34:30-32).
Did neither eat bread. This also was a repetition of the former experience (Deut. 9:9-12). Moses’ audience with the Lord sustained his physical strength, and this made food and drink unnecessary. The needs of the body were not felt because the desires of the spirit were so fully met (Ps. 16:11). Elijah (1 Kings 19:8) and Jesus (Matt. 4:1, 2) are the only others named in Scripture as having fasted for this length of time. The “he” in the closing sentence of this verse refers not to Moses but to God (Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:1-4).
29. While he talked with him. Preferably, “because he talked with him.” The radiant face of Moses was but a reflection of divine glory (2 Cor. 3:7). Similarly, at the transfiguration, divinity flashed through humanity (Matt. 17:2). Moses’ previous admission to the divine presence had not left any visible trace upon his countenance (Ex. 24:12-18). This difference was due partly to the fact that since his first ascent Moses had been severely tried and had come forth from that bitter experience a better man, purer and more fit for close communion with his God, and partly to the fact that the people were now repentant rather than rebellious. Moses had displayed devotion, courage, and zeal in calling a halt to apostasy.
In refusing to become the sole progenitor of a people whom God proposed to adopt instead of iniquitous Israel (ch. 32:10), and in offering himself in atonement for their transgressions (Ex. 32:32; John 15:13), he had manifested a spirit of supreme self-sacrifice. Thereafter he persisted in wholehearted and unselfish intercession for his countrymen (Ex. 33:12-16). In view of this demonstration of the highest type of religious devotion, a reflection of the very character of God Himself, it was appropriate that he should be permitted the unique privilege of seeing the glory of the Creator (chs. 33:18-23; 34:5-8). It is small wonder that his face shone after such an experience. Doubtless Paul had Moses in mind when he penned 2 Cor. 3:18.
He who is filled with the Spirit of God reflects the glorious character of God. From those who live close to God there goes forth an influence which, though like Moses they “wist not” its presence, has a telling effect on the lives of others. It has well been said that when we take care to keep right Godward, He will take care that we keep right manward. Our greatest impression upon men is made, not by that which we labor to achieve, but by that which we achieve unconsciously.
30. They were afraid. Their guilty consciences had made Aaron and the people feel that God was still estranged from them, and they shrank from the radiant countenance of Moses. Had they ever been obedient to God, joy would have taken the place of fear and they would have welcomed the light of heaven. This reflection of the glory and majesty of God was designed to impress upon Israel the sacred character of His law and the glory of the gospel revealed through Christ. Both had been presented to Moses in the mount. That divine light symbolized the glory of the dispensation of which Moses was the visible mediator (2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 14; PP 330).
33. Till Moses had done speaking. Preferably, “When Moses had done speaking.” The word “till” is not in the Hebrew. While Moses related to the people “all that the Lord had spoken” (v. 32), his face was unveiled. Thereafter he wore a veil over his face in their presence. This veiling of Moses’ face is a type of Jesus Christ, who veiled His divinity with humanity in order that He might fellowship with us (Phil. 2:5-11; DA 23). Had the Son of God come in the glory of heaven, sinful men could not have endured His presence. But as the Son of man He could associate freely with sinners and prepare them for a restoration to the very presence of God.
34. When Moses went in. That is, into the “tent of meeting” (ch. 33:7-10). When he came out again to speak the words of God to the people his face was left uncovered until he had given the message. The holy light added divine authority to his message and gave abiding evidence that he spoke to them as God’s representative. Like the moon, it bore witness to the absent sun.
35. Israel saw. After each message Moses again covered his face until he re-entered the “tent of meeting.”
In 2 Cor. 3:7-18 the apostle Paul uses this veiling of the face of Moses to typify the veiled glory of the old covenant in contrast to the unveiled and abiding glory of the new covenant. The glory of God may be discerned throughout OT times, though it is so often veiled by the imperfections of the men through whom He worked out His plan. Paul here speaks also of a “vail” upon the “heart” of the Jews of his day, to represent their spiritual blindness in not discerning Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of prophecy (see Matt. 15:24; 23:16; John 9:39-41). Our Lord found it difficult to remove this blindness even from His own disciples (Luke 24:25).
Moses’ removal of the veil also symbolizes the Christian believer’s “beholding” with an “open,” or unveiled, face “the glory of the Lord,” betokening his being “changed into the same image” of his Lord “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18). “The glory reflected in the countenance of Moses illustrates the blessings to be received by God’s commandment-keeping people through the mediation of Christ” (PP 330).
1. All the congregation. The Israelites were now ready to begin the construction and setting up of the tabernacle that had been planned (chs. 25-31) but delayed because of their apostasy (ch. 32; PP 343) and the need of renewing the covenant (chs. 33, 34). Since this was a project in which all the people were vitally interested and involved by reason of their offerings (ch. 25:2-7) and their labor (see chs. 28:3; 35:10, 25; 36:4; 39:42), Moses “gathered” them “together” for preliminary instructions.
2. Six days. The Hebrews were to be engaged in a holy enterprise and might think this an excuse for working on the Sabbath. But they were not to permit the sacred nature of their work to deceive them into a neglect of the holy observance of that day or to tread thoughtlessly on its sacred time. Herein is a pointed lesson for ministers and others who do God’s work on God’s day. The construction of the tabernacle, with the different skills and materials required for it was a secular matter, and therefore not a fit occupation for God’s holy day.
3. Kindle no fire. In early times the kindling of a fire required considerable labor. The comparatively warm climate of the Sinai region made artificial heating unnecessary, and a fire would have been kindled only for cooking purposes. Not being essential to health in such a climate, warm food was not to be prepared on Sabbath (see on ch. 16:23). This command is still strictly obeyed, even in cold climates, by the Karaite Jews, who permit neither fire nor light in their homes on the Sabbath day. However, many Jews view this charge as being only temporary in nature, and have both lights and fires, even in Palestine. But strictly orthodox Jews today cook no food on the Sabbath.
18. Pins. These were pegs driven into the ground to hold the ropes that supported the tent covering the tabernacle and the posts in the wall of the court.
25. Did spin. Spinning was a common art among the women of that day, from highest to lowest. There was work for all in the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings. God considers all work done for Him as of great value and importance, whether that of the “rulers” who “brought onyx stones” and precious “stones” and the costly “spice” (vs. 27, 28), or that of the humble women who “spun goats’ hair” (v. 26).
For further information concerning directions for the erection for the tabernacle, see on chs. 25 to 31.
29. A willing offering. The spirit of willingness manifested by the people of Israel must have been most pleasing in the sight of God, for “God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). It is not so much the amount given that counts with Him (Luke 21:3), but the spirit in which it is given (v. 4). Willingness and fidelity are what make our service acceptable to Him (COL 402), and He rewards us according to the generosity of His purpose (COL 397).
3. All the offering. The liberality of the people was truly was truly remarkable. They brought so much that the surplus “stuff” interfered with the progress of the work. The people made a similar response to the appeal of King Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:4-10).
8. Every wise hearted man. This chapter closely parallels what has been given in ch. 26. Points not previously mentioned are as follows:
22. Equally distant. Preferably, “set in order one against another,” to be inserted into the “sockets” (ch. 26:19).
27. The sides of the tabernacle. Preferably, “the side,” or rear, of the tabernacle.
37. The tabernacle door. Rather, “the door of the tent,” as in ch. 26:36.
38. Chapiters. That is, the capitals of the pillars.
The long and accurate repetition in the closing part of this book of the details of the construction of the tabernacle must have had a definite purpose. It shows the importance of the sanctuary and its every part in God’s plan of salvation. It also emphasizes the need of exact and strict obedience to the divine commands. If anyone might have been given the privilege of changing God’s directions in some slight degree, it would seem to be Moses; but no such prerogative is accorded him.
The exact correspondence of detail with detail teaches the lesson that what God commands is to be observed to the letter. These five concluding chapters of Exodus emphasize the extreme exactitude with which Moses and those under him carried out all the directions God had given. If “fifty taches” were ordered (ch. 26:6), “fifty taches” were made (ch. 36:13). If “five pillars” were commanded here (ch. 26:37), and “four pillars” there (ch. 26:32), the five and the four were constructed and set up accordingly (ch. 36:36, 38). If this curtain was to have a pattern woven into it (ch. 26:31), and that curtain was to be adorned with embroidery (ch. 26:36), the embroiderer and the weaver did so (ch. 36:35, 37). Nothing commanded was neglected. In only one or two cases (notably in ch. 36:38) small additions were made, if not to the orders given, at least to those recorded. The same spirit was later reflected by our Lord in His ministry (John 4:34; 17:4). God frowns upon any alteration of His commandments, any turning from them to the right or to the left, any deduction from them or addition to them. We cannot, we are not to attempt, to improve upon the gospel or God’s Word (Deut. 4:1, 2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5, 6).
The progressive manner in which the tabernacle was reared, first the erection of its framework, then the covering of the inner and outer curtains, and lastly the boards, bar, and veils, portrays the advancing work of sanctification in the experience of the believer. After his heart is surrendered through faith to Christ as his Saviour, there are added more and more Christian graces, till his whole life “fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord.” (Eph. 2:21, 22).
1. And Bezaleel. This chapter records the execution of instructions appearing in chs. 25:10-39; 30:1-5, 23-25, 34, 35, to which the reader is referred. Bezaleel commissioned others to do most of the work, but he reserved for himself the construction of the ark, its cherubim, and its mercy seat. This was undoubtedly because the ark was the most important article of equipment in the sanctuary, being, as it was, the abode of the Sacred Presence, and he intended it to be his masterpiece.
1. The altar of burnt offering. Verses 1-8 deal with the furniture for the court (see on chs. 27:1-5; 30:18).
8. The lookingglasses. Not mentioned previously, these were of highly polished bronze, circular or oval in form. Such mirrors were used by the women of Egypt, as in most Oriental lands, from very early times. Inasmuch as there seems to have been no command by Moses that this should be done, the women must have offered them in a spirit of commendable, consecrated self-denial. These mirrors were no doubt highly valued, and their dedication to God therefore an excellent example of sacrificial devotion (see Matt. 26:6-13).
These pious women esteemed the higher adornment of the spirit more than they did that the outward appearance (1 Peter 3:1-5). Their gift testified that they loved God more than they loved themselves.
23. Engraver. Inasmuch as Aholiab was skilled in textiles the word “engraver,” which suggests work in metals, should be translated “fabricator” or “craftsman.”
24. All the gold. “All the gold” would weight a little more than 2,204 lb. (1000 kg.). This would make a cube of gold about 142/3 in. (37.25 cm.) on a side. Gold was abundant in Egypt, being imported from Ethiopia. Much gold also came into the land of the Pharaohs as tribute from subject nations.
25. The silver. The weight of the silver would be about 7,582 lb. (3440 kg.) The “hundred sockets” (v. 27) compare exactly with the total number of “sockets” listed in ch. 26:19, 21, 25, 32.
29. The brass. That is, bronze. Its weight would be about 5,337 lb. (2421 kg.). To this must be added the value of the precious stones, the spices, the woodwork, the cloth, the various animal skins. This speaks well for the liberality of the people (see Ps. 105:37).
When the Hebrews left Egypt they “borrowed” treasure from the Egyptians (see on Ex. 3:22; 12:35, 36). Considerable wealth had also no doubt recently come to the Israelites from the defeated Amalekites (ch. 17:8-13).
1. And of the blue. The priestly garments were made according to the instructions recorded in ch. 28.
3. Beat the gold. Here for the first time an explanation is given of the method whereby gold thread was prepared for embroidering.
32. All the work. Inasmuch as the Israelites did not reach Mt. Sinai till the third month (ch. 19:1), and Moses was with God nearly three months (chs. 24:18; 34:28), construction of the tabernacle began about the sixth or seventh month and was completed before the end of the year (ch. 40:2; PP 349). Six months were thus occupied in its construction. The rapidity with which the work was completed indicates consecrated application, skilled workmanship, brotherly cooperation on the part of all who had part in the project, and the blessing of God that attended their efforts.
43. Moses did look. At the close of the creation God looked upon all the works of His hands. Finding them “very good” He pronounced a blessing upon them (Gen. 1:22, 28, 31). Now, man had completed a “sanctuary” where God promised to dwell (Ex. 25:8). It represented man’s best efforts, and was done “as the Lord had commanded” (ch. 39:43). Appropriately, “Moses blessed” the people for their labors of love and devotion.
2. On the first day. That is, the first of the month Abib, or Nisan, which would be toward the end of March or the first of April. To what better task could the people have set their hands on the first day of the new year than the erection of this place of worship?
3. Put therein the ark. The ark of the covenant was the most important article of all the appointments of the tabernacle, the very heart of the sanctuary, the basis of the covenant (Deut. 4:12, 13), the place of God’s presence among His people (see Ex. 25:8, 21, 22). It was therefore brought into the tabernacle first. The two tables of stone were already within it (vs. 20, 21).
5. Before the ark. Not in the most holy place, but “before the vail,” opposite the ark yet in the holy place (v. 26).
The hanging. That is, the curtain at the front, or eastern, end of the tabernacle (ch. 26:36, 37).
10. An altar most holy. Not because it was holier than other articles of the tabernacle, all of which are said to be “most holy” (ch. 30:29). It was so designated to impress constantly upon the people its sacred nature, inasmuch as they came more in contact with it than with the sanctuary and its contents.
15. Anoint them. There appears to be a difference between the anointing of the high priest and the anointing of the ordinary priests. The oil was first poured upon the head of Aaron, and afterward sprinkled upon his person and garments, but it seems to have been only sprinkled upon the common priests and not poured on their heads (Lev. 8:12, 30; Ps. 133:2). Because of this special anointing, the high priest is often referred to as “the priest that is anointed” (Lev. 4:5, 16; 6:22; 16:32).
17. Second year. The second counted inclusively, reckoning as the first the year in which they left Egypt. The 1st anniversary of the Exodus came two weeks later, on the 15th of the 1st month (see p. 187).
On the first day. Verses 17 to 33 record the actual rearing of the tabernacle. Owing to its portable nature this could easily be done in one day.
18. Fastened his sockets. Inasmuch as the “sockets,” or bases, were laid flat on the ground, the word “fastened” should be rendered “set” or “placed.” The “pillars” supported the inner “vail” and also the hangings at the east end, or entrance, of the sanctuary (ch. 26:31, 32, 36, 37).
19. The tent over the tabernacle. Here the distinction between the “tent,” the “tabernacle,” and the “covering” is clarified. The “tent” was the goats’ hair covering and the wooden framework that supported it. Over this was the “covering” of rams’ and seals’ skins (ch. 26:14).
25. He lighted the lamps. Moses, as a type of the great High Priest, Christ (Heb. 4:15; 8:1, 2) himself inaugurated the service of the sanctuary. Not only did he light the “lamps” and burn “sweet incense,” but he offered upon the altar of burnt offering the first evening sacrifice, “the burnt offering and the meat offering” (Ex. 29:38-41; 40:29).
30. He set the laver. Verses 31 and 32 are thrown in parenthetically to explain the purpose of the laver concerning which no explanation had yet been given.
33. Moses finished. The fabrication of the tabernacle was completed prior to its erection. After the gospel has been preached to the whole world, then the “elect” will be gathered (Matt. 24:14, 31). Then every “living stone” (1 Kings 6:7; 1 Peter 2:4, 5) that has been shaped and finished after the divine similitude will take its place in the temple of God (Rev. 3:12). We are now building the characters that are one day to become part of that eternal dwelling place (Matt. 6:19-21; 7:24-29). When once the preparatory labors in connection with the kingdom of God have been finished, in accordance with the plan, no time will be lost in setting it up in its full glory. Christ will then appear and His people will appear with Him (Col. 3:4).
Just as the rearing of the tabernacle prepared it to be the abiding place of the Lord, so the glorification of the church will open the way for “the tabernacle of God” to be “with men” (Rev. 21:3). As the people participated with Moses in the construction of the earthly sanctuary, so Christ invites us to be fellow workers with Him in the building of His church (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; 6:1). When the tabernacle was reared, nothing was lacking to make it perfect. Thus will it be when the church is finally glorified (Eph. 5:27).
34. A cloud. Literally, “the cloud.” This cloud had led Israel from Succoth onward (chs. 13:20-22; 14:19, 20, 24; 19:9; 24:15-18). For a time it also attended the temporary “tent of meeting” (ch. 33:7-10) but now “covered” the tabernacle as “the glory of the Lord filled” it.
The glory of the Lord. How eagerly the people must have crowded around to gaze upon the sacred structure. And while they watched with reverent satisfaction, the pillar of cloud floated majestically over the sanctuary, descended, and enveloped it. Thus God demonstrated His approval of all that had been done. The Lord accepted the house that had been prepared for Him, and entered it. With deep emotion the people beheld the token that the work of their hands was accepted (PP 349, 350). They now realized that God would Himself dwell among them and journey with them (Num. 9:15-23).
The book of Exodus appropriately closes with a sublime manifestation of the glory and power of God. It ends as the history of this world will end, with the descent of the glory of the Lord to dwell among men (Rev. 21:3; 22:5).
1. The Lord called unto Moses. God had promised that when the tabernacle was erected, He would commune with Moses from the sanctuary. He had previously spoken to him from the mount, but now He would speak from the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22). He now fulfills this promise, and calls Moses to come near, that through him He might instruct the people how to approach God and the sanctuary.
This instruction was urgently needed. Israel had but a vague conception of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. The people needed to be taught the first principles of reverence and worship. They were to learn that not only was God holy but His house and even its surroundings were sacred. They were to learn that only he who is holy can approach God and enter into His presence. They might therefore not presume to enter God’s dwelling place, but might come only as near as the door of the court, and with humility and contrition bring sacrifice. This the priests would receive from them on God’s behalf, and minister the blood and burn incense in the first apartment. Not even the priests could enter into the inmost sanctuary to minister. This was reserved for the high priest alone, who after deep heart searching had access to the most holy place for only a few minutes one day a year, the great Day of Atonement. After that the holiest remained closed for another year. God is indeed most holy.
Through the slain lamb; through the bullock, the ram, the he-goat, the turtledoves, the pigeons; through the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar of burnt offering, upon the altar of incense, toward the veil, or upon the ark; through the teaching and mediation of the priesthood, Israel was to learn how to approach God. They were not to be left in hopelessness as they faced the condemnation of God’s holy law. There was a way of escape. The Lamb of God would die for them. Through faith in His blood they might enter into communion with God. Through the mediation of the priest they might vicariously enter the sanctuary, and might, in the person of the high priest, even appear in the very audience chamber of the Most High. To the faithful in Israel this pre-figured the time when God’s people will with boldness “enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19).
All this God desired to teach Israel through the sacrificial system. To them it was the way of salvation. It gave them hope and courage. Though the law of God, the Ten Commandments, condemned them because of their sins, the fact that the Lamb of God was to die for them gave them hope. The sacrificial system constituted the gospel for Israel. It pointed the way to communion and fellowship with God.
There are professed Christians who do not see much of importance or value for them in the divinely appointed Temple services; yet the gospel plan of salvation as revealed more fully in the NT is made clearer by an understanding of the OT. In fact, he who understands the Levitical system as presented in the OT can much better understand and appreciate gospel as set forth in the NT. The one foreshadows the other and is a type of it.
Out of the tabernacle. As a result of sin man had been driven from his Paradise home, where he enjoyed open communion with his Maker. Because man no longer qualified to live with God, God now condescended to come down and live with man. Accordingly, He had instructed Moses, “Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8). This Moses had done, and “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34). Wonderful love! God could not bear to be separated from His own, and His love devised a plan whereby He might even yet live among them! He would go with them on their journeys to and fro in the wilderness, and at last lead them into the Promised Land.
2. An offering. Heb. qorban, from the verb qarab, “to draw near,” “to approach.” Burnt offerings were of two kinds, obligatory and voluntary. Certain of the obligatory burnt offerings came at stated times and were presented by the priests on behalf of the entire nation. These included the daily burnt offering (Ex. 29:38-42; Num. 28:3-8), the Sabbath burnt offering (Num. 28:9, 10), and festal burnt offerings at the new moon, the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 28:11 to 29:39). Other obligatory burnt offerings were of an occasional nature and were presented by individuals. Such were the offerings at the consecration of a priest (Ex. 29:15-18; Lev. 8:18-21; 9:12-14), at childbirth (Lev. 12:6-8), at the cleansing of a leper (ch. 14:19, 20), at the purifying from ceremonial defilement (ch. 15:14, 15, 30), and at the taking of a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:13-16). Voluntary burnt offerings might be presented by an individual at any time, but must conform in all respects to the same regulations that governed the obligatory burnt offerings (see Num. 7; 1 Kings 8:64). The regulations of Lev. 1 are concerned specifically with voluntary burnt offerings, though the ritual was similar for the others as well.
3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice. “If his qorban [see v. 2] be an ‘olah.” ‘Olah, the usual Hebrew word for “burnt sacrifice” or “burnt offering,” means “that which goes up” or “that which ascends.” Another term, used but twice, is kalil, meaning “whole.” These words derive from the fact that burnt offerings were wholly burned on the altar, and that as the smoke arose, so the offering ascended, figuratively, to God. The Douay Version uses the word “holocaust,” meaning “that which is wholly burnt up.” These names fitly describe the burnt offering. No part of it was eaten, as was the case with some of the other sacrifices; all was burned and ascended to God in the flames as a “sweet savour” (v. 9). Nothing was held back. All was given to God. It denoted complete consecration.
Burnt offerings are first mentioned after the Flood, when Noah “offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20). They are next mentioned in God’s command to Abraham to offer up his son “for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of” (Gen. 22:2). The book of Job, perhaps the oldest in the Bible, records how Job “rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings … for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). Job apparently believed that his burnt offerings availed to avert the anger of God even though his sons had brought no offering for themselves, and perhaps were not aware that they had sinned. The rabbis had a saying: “Burnt offerings atone for the transgressions of Israel.”
Burnt offerings were the earliest of all offerings and the most characteristic and comprehensive, combining in themselves the essential elements of all offerings. Their importance is shown by the fact that for centuries they were the only offerings in existence. Later, when other offerings were commanded, it was expressly provided that they were not to take the place of, but were to be in addition to, the continual burnt offering” (see Num. 28:10; 29:16; etc.).
Although the daily morning and evening sacrifices, mandatory even on the great Day of Atonement, were for the nation, they also served a definite purpose for the individual Israelite. When the sanctuary service was finally established in Jerusalem, God commanded that henceforth all sacrifices should be brought there, and that the priests only should officiate at the altar. Though this centralized the worship and tended toward uniformity, and was thus helpful, it created hardship for those who lived at some distance from the sanctuary. A journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would take several days, especially if a sacrificial animal was brought along. On the journey home the man might sin again and would need to make a return trip. This, of course, presented an impossible situation. For him, the daily evening and morning sacrifice offered a happy solution.
The prescribed animals used in the daily services were procured with money contributed by the entire people. Every morning a lamb was offered on the altar of burnt offering for the whole nation, and in the evening the service was repeated. This burnt sacrifice provided a temporary and provisional atonement for the nation until such time as the individual sinner could himself appear and bring his own sacrifice. These national offerings did for the nation what Job had in mind when he said, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). Job did not know whether his sons had sinned. But it might be that they had. And so, to “cover” them until they should bring their own offerings, Job acted for them. In like manner the daily burnt offering for the nation covered Israel until each could bring his individual offering. The Talmud teaches that the morning sacrifice atoned for sins done during the night, and the evening sacrifice for sins done during the day.
The daily burnt offerings were burned on the altar, but over a slow fire so that one sacrifice would last until the next was put on (Lev. 6:9). The evening sacrifice lasted until morning, and the morning sacrifice until evening. Thus there was always a victim on the altar to provide provisional and temporary atonement for Israel. When a man sinned, though he was unable to appear at the sanctuary immediately, or even for weeks and months, he knew that there was a sacrifice on the altar for him, and that he was “covered” until he could bring his own offering and confirm his repentance.
This merciful provision for sinners of old constitutes a strong hope for the sinner today. There are times when we sin but are not aware of it until later, and hence do not confess immediately. What a comfort to know that Christ stands ever ready to “cover” us with His robe of righteousness until we come to realize our condition, that He never leaves us or forsakes us, and that even before we come to Him He has made the necessary provision for our salvation. Thanks be to God for this wonderful provision! But let none take undue advantage of this and delay confession.
Even though the individual burnt offerings discussed in Lev. 1 are all voluntary, yet when offered, as already noted, the ritual to be followed was precise and strict. The Israelites were thus taught implicit obedience. God might forgive, God will forgive, but there must be absolute adherence to the divine instructions. He who would draw near to God, must do it in the manner of God’s appointment. That worship only is acceptable to Him which is in accordance with His will—not that which to us may seem best and most effective, not that which we might think best adapted to the occasion, not that which appears to bring the quickest returns or the most money, but that only which God approves and upon which He can bestow His blessing.
Four kinds of animals were used as burnt offerings: bullocks, sheep, goats, fowls. The offerer might choose whichever he wished. The rich who could afford a bullock would naturally bring one. The poor who could afford only a turtledove or a pigeon would bring one of these. Significantly Mary, the mother of Jesus, brought two turtledoves to the Temple as her gift after childbirth (see Lev. 12:8; Luke 2:22-24). Joseph and Mary were poor people. The lion and the eagle, kings among beasts and fowls, being unclean, were not used in sacrifice, but rather the lamb and the dove. God does not regard a high and lofty spirit, but the meek and the lowly He will accept.
The voluntary burnt offering was a gift of love, of dedication, of consecration. It was offered in a spirit of cheerful sacrifice to God. It was more than a gift; it was the giving of oneself, a living sacrifice. We do not offer burnt offerings today, but it would be well for us to apply the spirit which prompted burnt offerings to everyday Christian living. God still loves cheerful, willing service (2 Cor. 9:7).
A male without blemish. “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein” (Lev. 22:21). This emphasizes the fact that God demands our best. We may not be rich or able to bring great gifts to God, but that which we give must be perfect. We are not to bring anything less than the best we have. We are not to give to God that which is of inferior value—a defective coin, unsalable property, scraps of unoccupied time. God is to be served with the best we can command.
Of his own voluntary will. Rather, “that he may be accepted before the Lord” (RSV). He was to “offer it … at the door of the tabernacle,” but in so doing he would be “accepted before the Lord.” The same Hebrew word here translated “voluntary” is rendered “accepted” in v. 4.
4. Accepted for him. The animal brought as a sacrifice was considered a substitute for the sinner. It was to be accepted “for” him, that is, instead of him. Inasmuch as the substitute was a symbol of Christ, it too must be perfect (ch. 22:25).
A solemn and essential part of the ritual was the placing of the hand of the offerer upon the head of the victim. The word samak, “put,” means “to lean” with one’s weight, an act by which the penitent sinner represented his utter dependence upon the substitute. As to the meaning of this, commentators, ancient and modern, understand that it signifies a symbolic transfer of his sins from the offerer to the victim, or the substitution of the victim to die in the sinner’s place. “The laying of hands upon the victim’s head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and the transfer of sins are effected.” “In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner” (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286, art. “Atonement, Day of”).
Inasmuch as Christians now by faith lay their sins on Jesus, the Lamb of God, it seems fitting to find in the sacrificial service a ceremony typifying this. In the ritual of the burnt offering we find this mirrored; in fact, the laying on of the hand was required in all cases where sin was involved. The Christian sees in the ceremony of the laying on of the hand and leaning on the victim a type of his own dependence upon Christ for salvation. In so leaning we place our sins upon Him, and He takes our place on the altar, a sacrifice “holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1).
Having followed the directions God gave, the repentant sinner could be sure that the victim was accepted in his stead. Even so, we too may be assured that as we follow God’s directions we may be accepted in Christ, our Substitute, knowing that He takes our place on the altar—that He has, in truth, already done so on the cross. He died for us, instead of us, and because He died we shall live.
5. Kill the bullock. We cannot believe that a normal individual would take pleasure in plunging a knife into an innocent victim, even though that victim be only an animal. Yet God required this act of the offerer. In later times the priests did the slaying, thought it was God’s original intent that the sinner himself should do so. This must have been a painful and distressing experience for the sinner, because he knew that it was his sin that made the death necessary. It must have impressed him with the determination to “go, and sin no more.” He saw vividly before him the result of sin. It meant not only death, but the death of an innocent one. What other result could this ceremony have than to create in the transgressor a hatred for sin and a solemn resolve to have no more to do with it?
The first lesson God wanted to teach Israel through the sacrificial system was that sin means death. Again and again this lesson was impressed upon their hearts. Every morning and evening throughout the year a lamb was offered for the nation. Day after day the people brought their sin offerings and their burnt offerings to the sanctuary. In each case an animal was slain and the blood ministered in the appointed place. On every ceremony and on every service was stamped the lesson: Sin means death.
This lesson is needed as much in our time as it was in the days of old. Some Christians hold sin too lightly. They think of it as a passing aspect of life that mankind will outgrow. Others consider sin regrettable but unavoidable. All need to have impressed indelibly upon the mind the lesson that sin means death. The NT specifically states that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), but many fail to grasp the importance of the statement. A more realistic conception of sin and death as being inseparably connected would help much in an appreciation and understanding of the gospel. For the Christian this holds an important lesson. We were guilty, not He. A contemplation of the cross should bring to us first a feeling of guilt, then of revulsion from sin, and finally profound thankfulness to God that through death comes salvation. Christ died for me. I should have died, for I sinned, and “the wages of sin is death.” But Christ died for me; He went to Calvary in my place! How adequate the provision! How wonderful the love!
Sprinkle the blood. The offerer had finished his work. He had brought his sacrifice, confessed his sin, and slain the victim. Now the ministration of the blood began. A priest had stood by as the blood gushed forth, and had caught it in a vessel. He now ministered the blood by sprinkling it round about upon the altar of burnt offering. The word here translated “sprinkle” literally means “to scatter.” It is used of scattering dust (Job 2:12), live coals (Eze. 10:2), water (Num. 19:13), etc. According to the Talmud the officiating priest scattered the blood against the altar at two places, the northeastern and southwestern corners, in such a way that it would touch all four sides of the altar. For sanitary reasons this was probably done on the inside of the altar. The unused portion of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar. Later, at the Temple in Jerusalem, surplus blood was disposed of by means of a tile drain, which conveyed it to the brook Kidron.
God sought to impress upon Israel that forgiveness of sin can be obtained only through confession and the ministration of blood. They were to realize the infinite cost of forgiveness. It is more than merely overlooking faults. It cost God something to be able to forgive; it cost a life, even the life of His own Son.
To some the death of Christ appears unnecessary. God could, or should, they think, forgive without Calvary. The cross does not seem to them an integral and vital part of the atonement. It would be well if Christians today contemplated more than they do the cost of their salvation. Forgiveness is not a simple matter. Through the ceremonial system God taught Israel that forgiveness can be had only through the shedding of blood. We need that lesson now. In the sacrificial system of Israel are to be found the fundamental principles of holy living. The OT is fundamental. He who is thoroughly grounded in it will be able to erect a superstructure that will not fall when the rains descend and the winds blow. He will be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).
6. Flay the burnt offering. Originally, the offerer himself did this, though this part of the ritual was later taken over by the Levites. In the wilderness there were but few to participate in the services, as compared with later times, in the Promised Land, when hundreds and even thousands of offerers arrived in a single day. The Levites and priests who were accustomed to the ritual could perform the flaying more expeditiously than the people.
7. Put fire upon the altar. At a designated place upon the altar of burnt offering a fire was always burning. It was the duty of the priests to make sure that this fire never went out. Because God Himself had kindled it, it was considered sacred fire. This fire must not be put to common use, nor must common fire be used in any sanctuary service. From this central fire on the altar, the priests lighted other fires to accommodate such sacrifices as might be brought. Thus several fires were burning at the altar at one time, all lighted from the one central fire. It was from this altar that the priests took coals for their censers when they went in to offer incense in the holy place. The fire on the altar of incense came from the altar of burnt offering. It is interesting to note that in heaven there is an angel who has charge of the fire (Rev. 14:18).
Lay the wood in order. The wood used in the sanctuary service was carefully inspected before it was permitted to come on the altar. Wood that had been attacked by insects or eaten by worms was rejected. It was the work of certain of the priests to provide and care for the wood, and once a year the people were asked to help gather fuel for the sanctuary. This must in itself have been educational for them; for as they gathered the wood and examined it to see that it would pass the inspection of the priests, they must have been impressed with God’s holiness and His demand for perfection even in small matters.
The wood was not thrown on the fire, nor casually put on. It was carefully placed “in order.” The lesson is evident. Nothing that has to do with God’s service may be done in a slipshod manner. All must be done with care and reverence.
8. Lay the parts. The lesson of orderliness is the same as in v. 7. All parts of the victim were to be placed in position on the altar as in the living animal, on the wood which was also “in order.” Says the apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). This is good NT Christianity.
9. Wash in water. In harmony with the rule that nothing unclean must come on the altar or be used in the service of God, the entrails and the legs were washed in water before the victim was placed on the altar. It might readily be argued that this was unnecessary, as the fire would soon consume the sacrifice and everything unclean be destroyed. Why, then, spend time in washing parts of the animal?
This, again, must have deeply impressed all with the holiness of God, and His hatred of disorder and everything that defiles. In fact, every act, every ceremony, brought home the lesson of the sacredness of God’s work, the holiness of His character.
The priest shall burn all. There was one exception to this: the skin was not burned, but given to the priest (ch. 7:8). We are not told why this exception was made.
A sweet savour. That is, pleasing to Him. The burnt offerings of ch. 1 were not mandatory offerings but voluntary, something the offerer brought because he felt his need of God and wanted to show his appreciation for the goodness of the Lord. In bringing the offering he was expressing his love for God and consecrating himself to His service.
Burnt offerings were offered on many occasions and represented consecration and thankfulness to God. They did not call for any specific favor, but expressed gratitude for past mercies. They were offered in the cleansing of a leper (ch. 14:19, 20), the cleansing of women after childbirth (ch. 12:6-8), and also for general defilement (ch. 15:15, 30). In many cases a sin offering accompanied the burnt offering, but not always. When sin and burnt offerings were brought by the same individual, the sin offering came first and was for a specific sin or sins; the burnt offering was for general sinfulness, without reference to any particular sin.
Burnt offerings had a prominent place in the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:15-25; Lev. 8:18), as well as their induction into the priesthood (Lev. 9:12-14). They were also used in Nazirite vows (Num. 6:13-16). In these instances they stood for complete consecration of the individual to God. In them the offerer placed himself symbolically on the altar, his life wholly devoted to God’s service.
Sacrifices were embodied prayers. Considered in this light they take on deeper meaning. If a Christian falls into temptation and commits a sin, he meekly confesses his sin and asks for forgiveness. The true Israelite did the same, but in addition he brought a sin offering for the specific sin. If he also brought a burnt offering, he was in that act saying, “Lord, I may have done other things also that are not pleasing to Thee. I am not aware that I have done this, but in mercy forgive wherein I may have come short.” When we pray this prayer today we are doing what the Israelite did when he brought his burnt offering.
Paul’s expression in Rom. 12:1, “present your bodies a living sacrifice,” is a reference to ancient burnt offerings. We are to be wholly dedicated to God. We are to be completely cleansed. Only when all filth was removed from the burnt offering, was it permitted to come upon the altar, “an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” So it is with us. All sin, all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, must be removed before we are fit for the altar (2 Cor. 7:1).
The burnt offering is a type of Christ, who gave Himself fully, completely to God, leaving an example for us to follow. It teaches entire sanctification, complete dedication. It is rightly placed first in the list of offerings in Leviticus. It tells us in no uncertain tones that to be a sweet savor unto God, a sacrifice must be one of entire surrender. All must be placed on the altar, all must be dedicated to God.
As the sacrifice was to be perfect, so Christ is the “lamb without blemish and without spot,” the One altogether lovely, the Holy One, who “loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (1 Peter 1:19; Eph. 5:2).
The burnt sacrifice was pleasing to God because it revealed a desire in the heart of the offerer to dedicate himself to God. In bringing his sacrifice the offerer said in effect, “Lord, I desire to serve Thee. I am placing myself on the altar, reserving nothing for myself. Accept me in the Substitute and for His sake.” Such an attitude is pleasing to God.
The burnt offerings of ch. 1 were a “sweet savour” unto God because they were entirely voluntary. Christians are in danger of doing that which in itself is good and right, not because of an inner urge or an impelling love but because it is the custom or because it is expected. Duty is a great word and should be emphasized; but we are not to forget that love is still greater, and that rightly applied it fulfills duty because it includes duty. Love is voluntary, spontaneous, free; duty is exacting, compulsory. Both are necessary in the Christian life, and one must not be stressed to the exclusion of the other. Duty fulfills the law and goes all the way. Love also fulfills the law and goes all the way; but then it goes even further. It goes the second mile. It gives the cloak also.
“God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Some would substitute “liberal” for “cheerful” which would probably be true also. But the text reads “cheerful.” It denotes one who gives willingly, who does not need to be urged, but cheerfully does his part. Such is pleasing to God. This spirit is typified in the burnt offering. It would be pleasing to God if the spirit of happy, cheerful service were more common than it is. Often we do resignedly, perhaps even with grumbling, that which we should do with eagerness and a happy spirit. God loves a cheerful giver, not only of money but of service. There are tasks to be done that are not agreeable or pleasant. God appreciates our doing them as a matter of duty, but He would be even more pleased if we would do them voluntarily and without murmur or complaint. There are those who have to be encouraged, admonished, urged, almost bribed to do what they should do cheerfully and of their own free will (see Isa. 64:7; Mal. 1:10). An indifferent attitude and the desire for reward weary both men and God. It is disheartening to leaders to admonish earnestly and repeatedly and win but a feeble response.
10. Of the flocks. If an offerer could not afford or was not inclined to offer a bullock, he might select a sheep or a goat from the flock. This was acceptable to God; but whatever he selected, it must be a male, and it must be without blemish.
11. Sprinkle his blood. The ritual was the same as for a bullock. In this case nothing is said of placing the hand on the head of the animal, but doubtless this was done. As in the case of a bullock, the priest stood ready to receive the blood and to sprinkle it round about upon the altar (see on v. 5).
13. He shall wash the inwards. The same ritual was followed as with the bullock. The animal was flayed, cut into pieces, the legs and the entrails washed, and then the pieces carried to the altar and there placed in order.
14. Of fowls. Turtledoves and pigeons were inexpensive, and even the poor could afford to bring one. It should be remembered that the offerings of ch. 1 were voluntary. But a heart overflowing with love would find some way of bringing a gift to God, however small it might be. Such offerings were as precious in the sight of God as the more pretentious ones.
Jesus plainly taught this when He said of the widow who cast in the two mites, that she “hath cast in more than they all” (Luke 21:3, 4). A mite being worth only a fraction of a cent, her gift was small indeed. But she gave all she had. The amount she gave was not the true measure of her gift. It was not what she gave but what she had left that counted.
15. The priests shall bring it. Ordinarily, the offerer did the slaying. But in the case of a fowl the quantity of blood was so small that it was necessary for the priest himself to kill the bird, so that he might quickly touch the altar with the blood of the victim.
16. His crop with his feathers. These were thrown on the ash heap, as burning them would produce an offensive odor.
17. A sweet savour. The birds were too small to divide, too small to sprinkle the blood in the same manner as in other offerings, too small to rest the hand on (see on v. 4); but they were, nevertheless, a sweet savor unto God. The offerer had little part in the ritual except to provide the bird. The priest did the rest. Even so, the offerer had done what he could, and this was pleasing and acceptable to God.
1. Offer a meat offering. More accurately, bring “a cereal offering [minchah] as an offering [qorban see on ch. 1:2], ” RSV. The word minchah, originally without specific religious significance, designated a gift presented to a superior. The “present” Jacob gave Esau was a minchah (Gen. 32:13). So also was the “present” that Joseph’s brothers gave him upon their arrival in Egypt (Gen. 43:11). It stood, as well, for the tribute paid by conquered peoples (2 Sam. 8:2, 6). These gifts expressed submission and dependence. At the time of Sinai minchah became the official designation for a gift to God, a gift of homage, an acknowledgment of the superiority of the One to whom the gift was given. It signified man’s dependence upon God for all the good things of life, in recognition of Him as owner and provider. In presenting such an offering a man acknowledged himself as but a steward of the things entrusted to him.
When the KJV translation was made the word “meat” meant food of all kinds. However, the expression “meat offering,” from minchah, now conveys the idea of flesh meat, which was not used in the “meat” offerings of Lev. 2. It was, rather, a meal or cereal offering, consisting of flour or grain prepared in various ways, but never of flesh meat. The minchah of Abel was, nevertheless, a lamb (Gen. 4:4). Most recent translations render minchah as “meal” or “cereal” offering.
As there were both private and public burnt offerings, so there were private and public meat offerings. The private meat offerings were voluntary, and could be offered at will and at any time. The public meat offerings were prescribed and mandatory.
Chief among the public meat offerings was the shewbread, or “bread of the Presence,” placed each Sabbath on the table in the first apartment of the sanctuary. It was first presented to the Lord, left on the table for a week, and then eaten by the priests. It was called the “bread of the Presence,” literally the “bread of the Face,” as it was continually on the table in the presence of, or before the face of, God. The shewbread table was also called the “pure table” (Lev. 24:6).
The shewbread offering consisted of 12 loaves, each made from about 51/3 lb. (2.4 kg.) of flour, and hence of considerable size. The loaves were placed in two stacks of six each on the table. The priests who had served during that week offered the Sabbath morning sacrifices and remained until the priests who had come in on Friday to serve the coming week offered the Sabbath evening sacrifices. The outgoing priests removed the old bread as the incoming priests placed the new on the table. They were careful not to remove the old until the new was ready to be put on; for there must always be bread on the table, as there must always be a burnt sacrifice on the altar. Hence, the burnt sacrifice was called the “continual burnt offering,” and the bread the “continual shewbread” (Ex. 29:42; 2 Chron. 2:4). The shewbread was offered to God under an “everlasting covenant” (Lev. 24:8). It was an ever-present testimony of Israel’s dependence upon God for sustenance and life; on God’s part it constituted a continual promise that He would sustain His people. Israel’s need was ever before God, and God’s promise was ever before the people.
A drink offering accompanied the morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. 29:40; Num. 15:5). For this reason the shewbread table contained dishes, spoons, covers, and bowls, or as other versions render it, dishes, spoons, and “cups, with which they pour out” (Ex. 25:29, Young’s translation). This drink offering was poured out in the holy place “unto the Lord.”
It is not a long step from the table of shewbread mentioned in the OT to the table of the Lord in the NT (see Luke 22:30; 1 Cor. 10:21). The bread is Christ’s body, broken for us. The cup is the new testament in His blood (1 Cor. 11:24, 25).The “bread of the Presence” is symbolic of Him who “ever liveth to make intercession” for us, of the “living bread which came down from heaven” (Heb. 7:25; John 6:51).
His offering shall be. This offering could be brought by anyone who desired to present a gift to God. It consisted of fine flour, oil, and frankincense. At times it was brought as a separate offering, but was generally combined with a burnt sacrifice.
Fine flour is the product of cooperation between God and man. God places the life principle in the seed, gives sunshine and rain, and causes it to grow. Man sows the seed, tends it, harvests it, grinds it into fine flour, and then presents it to God either in its material state as flour or as cakes baked in an oven. It is God’s original gift plus man’s labor. It is giving back to God His own with interest. It is symbolic of man’s lifework, of talents improved.
God gives to every man talents according to his capacity for using them. Some have more than one talent, no one has less. God is not pleased when men give back to Him only that which He has given them, return to Him only the amount of seed entrusted to them. God would have man plant the seed, tend and harvest it, remove all foreign and coarse particles, grind it between the upper and the nether millstone, crushing all life out of it, and then present it to Him as “fine flour.” He expects every talent to be improved, refined, ennobled.
2. Bring it to Aaron’s sons. No directions are given as to the amount to be brought. This was optional with the individual. Of each offering the priest took a handful of the flour, some of the oil, and all of the frankincense, and burned them on the altar. This was called the “memorial” part, and was “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” To this, as to all other offerings, salt was to be added (v. 13; DA 439).
3. The remnant. The cereal offering was in reality a gift to the priests, for they received all except the “memorial” portion of it. They were to divide their own portion among themselves, and each was to receive an equal share (ch. 7:10).
4. Baken in the oven. The meat offering the priests received consisted of flour and oil. They could take this and bake what they pleased. But it was also permissible for the offerer to bake it himself and bring the baked offering to the priests. If he did so, he must make unleavened cakes of fine flour and oil, divide the cakes into pieces, and pour oil over them. They might be baked in an oven or in a pan.
7. Baken in the fryingpan. The ingredients were the same, fine flour and oil. The cakes were brought “unto the Lord” and presented to the priest, who was to take the “memorial” part (v. 9) and burn it on the altar. The part that was left belonged to Aaron and his sons and was “a thing most holy” (see v. 10).
Fine flour. The fine flour used in meat offerings was no different from other fine flour, and had no special virtue attached to it. Yet, after it was given to the priest it became “most holy.” The same principle applied in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5). It should cause all who minister in holy things and receive dedicated offerings to be careful in the use of and handling of these “most holy” things.
As noted above, fine flour represents man’s lifework, his talents consecrated and improved.
Flour is merely crushed grain. Before being crushed it was capable of perpetuating itself, of transmitting life. Now, being crushed, it is apparently useless. It can never be planted again. The life is crushed out of it. But is it useless? No. It has given its life, it has died, that another life might be maintained. The crushing of its own life becomes the means through which a higher life is perpetuated. It was the life of the seed; now it helps sustain the life of a living being, created in the image of God. Death has enriched it, glorified it, made it serviceable to man.
Few lives are of real and enduring value until they have been bruised and crushed. It is in the deep and dark experiences of life that men find themselves and God. It is when the water goes over the soul that character is built. Sorrow, disappointment, and suffering are the able servants of God. The dark days bring showers of blessing, enabling the seed to germinate, fulfill its mission, and bring forth fruit.
The problem of suffering may be unfathomable in its deeper aspects. But some things are clear. Suffering serves a definite purpose in the plan of God as a means of preparing the soul for heaven. It mellows the spirit. It fits the soul for a deeper understanding of the true meaning of life. It inspires sympathy for others. It leads one to walk softly before God and men. It humbles.
In this life, only he who has suffered has really lived. Only he who has loved has lived. The two are inseparable. Love involves sacrifice, and sacrifice often involves suffering. This, however, need not necessarily be painful suffering; for the highest kind of suffering is holy, exalted, joyful. A mother may sacrifice for her child; she may suffer physically; but she does it joyfully, willingly. Love counts sacrifice a privilege.
The full lesson of suffering has not been learned until we can rejoice in it. And rejoice we may, and will, when we experience what Paul did when he said that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ” (2 Cor. 1:5). This is true also of vicarious suffering. Christ, “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2).
The flour in the meat offering was not to be offered by itself alone; it was to be mingled with oil. Oil is symbolic of the Spirit of God. Only as a life is sanctified by the Spirit, mixed with it, anointed with it, can it be pleasing to God. Suffering in and of itself may not prove a blessing. With some it only leads to hardness of heart and bitterness of spirit. But as the Holy Spirit takes possession of the soul, as the sweet spirit of the Master permeates the life, the fragrance of a dedicated life becomes manifest.
9. A memorial. As God reserved a “memorial” portion of every meat offering for Himself, so He also reserves a memorial part of our income and our time. One tenth of our increase belongs to God. “All the tithe … is the Lord’s” (ch. 27:30). In like manner He has reserved the seventh day as belonging to Him (Ex. 20:10).
In these respects the Christian church comes lamentably short. Few recognize God’s claims upon them. They act as if what they have belongs to them, when in reality they are merely stewards. They count themselves liberal when they give to God’s cause, when perhaps the amount of their liberality does not equal the part which of right belongs to God, and is not theirs to begin with. In like manner, many fail in their observance of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath hours are holy time, in which we are to do God’s work and not our own.
It would be well for us to remember that the memorial part of all we possess belongs to God.
11. No leaven, nor any honey. Leaven was forbidden in any meat offering presented to God to be burned on the altar. The same prohibition applied to honey. Fermentation is a symbol of corruption. Said Christ, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1). Paul speaks of the “leaven of malice and wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:8). Honey as well as leaven was used to produce fermentation, especially in the making of vinegar. Interpreters generally associate honey with the lusts of the flesh, which may indeed be pleasing, but which contain the elements of corruption and are destructive of spiritual life. However, though leaven and honey might not be burned on the altar, leaven was definitely commanded to be brought as first fruits (Lev. 23:17), and honey was among the first fruits offered by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:5).
13. The salt of the covenant. A covenant of salt is a perpetual covenant (Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5). In its ability to preserve, salt is the opposite of leaven and honey. Its symbolic meaning is plain: the purifying and preserving principles of holiness and truth must never be wanting in our covenant relations with God.
“Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt” (Mark 9:49). Fire purifies, salt preserves. To be salted with fire means not only purification but preservation. God desires a pure people, a clean people, a holy people, a people whose sins are forgiven. The keeping power of God is theirs for the asking. Not only are they to become clean and holy, but they are to be kept so. The fire with which they are to be “salted” does not destroy, but purifies. We are first to be cleansed, then we are to be kept. “Salted with fire!” “Salted with salt!” Purified and kept pure! Wonderful provision!
14. Green ears of corn. “New grain from fresh ears” (RSV). By “corn” is meant any grain, such as wheat, barley, rye, or oats. Stalks of wheat, with the ears, gathered before they are fully ripe and roasted, are still a favorite food in the East. Such could also be used for a meat offering. Oil was poured on the ears of corn, with frankincense; the “memorial” portion was burned on the altar, and the remainder given to the priest. Perhaps the bruised grain here typifies Him who was bruised for us, and by whose stripes we are healed (Isa. 53:5).
The various meat offerings present Christ as the life-giver and upholder, the One through and in whom “we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). As burnt offerings stood for consecration of the life, so meat offerings called for consecration of one’s means. The dedication of one’s means should be preceded by a dedication of life. A dedication of the life without a dedication of one’s means is not provided for in the gospel; neither is a dedication of means without a dedication of life. The two must go together. Combined, they constitute a complete sacrifice, pleasing to God, “a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev. 1:9).
The idea of stewardship needs emphasis. Some bear the name of Christ and loudly profess holiness and devotion to God, but their works do not correspond to their profession. The purse strings are held tightly, appeals go unheeded, and God’s cause languishes. Such need to understand that entire consecration of the life includes also consecration one’s means.
It would be incorrect, however, to conclude that a consecration of one’s means is all that God requires, and that liberal giving will smooth the way to heaven. We are to consecrate ourselves to Him. We are responsible to God for every talent He has entrusted to us, whether of means, time, or natural gifts. Of all these we are stewards, and God is the rightful Master. Talents such as song, music, speech, and leadership all belong to God. They must be dedicated to Him; they must be put on the altar.
The “meat” offerings are replete with spiritual lessons for the devout soul. All we are should be dedicated to God; all we have should be on the altar. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:7). “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another” (Mark 9:50). Finally, in the service of God we may not substitute our own inventions and methods for the plans of God, though they may be sweet as honey to out own taste.
1. Peace offering. Heb. shelem, from a root word meaning “to make peace” (Joshua 10:4) or “to be at peace” (Job 22:21), “to make restitution” (Ex. 22:5), “to make complete [pay]” (Ps. 50:14). The distinguishing feature of the peace offering was the communal meal held within the precincts of the sanctuary, in which joy and happiness prevailed and in which people and priests held converse. This was not an occasion where peace was effected, but a feast of rejoicing that peace existed. It was generally preceded by a sin offering and a burnt offering. The blood had been sprinkled, atonement had been made, forgiveness extended, and justification assured. In celebration of this experience the offerer invited his near of kin, the servants, and the Levites to eat with him. The whole family assembled in the court of the congregation to celebrate the fact that peace had been effected between God and man, and between man and man.
There is no higher joy conceivable than that of being at peace with God (see Rom. 5:1). It is the legacy Christ left when He said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27). Christ’s peace is that quiet assurance that comes from confidence in God.
Christ spoke these words of peace in the very shadow of Gethsemane and Golgotha. He knew what awaited Him, but He did not shrink from it. His heart was filled with peace and love. He knew in whom He trusted, and rested in the assurance that the Father loved Him. He might not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope might not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, nor tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. But by faith He was victor. He knew whom He believed, and was assured that all would come out well. It is this peace He bequeaths to us. It means oneness with the Father; it means quiet, rest, joy, and contentment; it means love, faith, fellowship, communion; it means freedom from worry, fear, and anxiety. The Christian who enjoys this peace has a source of strength not dependent on circumstances. He is in tune with God.
As noted before, the various sacrifices of the OT were embodied prayers. They combined faith and works. They expressed man’s need of and relation to God. The people might not offer up incense with their prayers, but they might provide the incense. They might not minister the blood, but they might provide the sacrifice. They might not enter the sanctuary, but they might provide the gifts and offerings that made the service possible. They might not eat the shewbread, but they might provide “the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord” (v. 11).
“Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1), “for he is our peace” (Eph. 2:14). Israel of old was invited to celebrate the fact that they were at peace with God and man, that their sins were forgiven, that they were restored to favor with Heaven. These were occasions of joy and thankfulness, when misunderstandings had been cleared up and peace and good fellowship prevailed. Sons and daughters, manservants and maidservants, and invited Levites were to participate. All sat down at the table of the Lord and rejoiced together “in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:2). It might be well for the people of God today to celebrate feasts of rejoicing over the fact that they are at peace with God (see Additional Note at close of chapter).
2. Lay his hand. The animal was killed at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, where most sacrificial animals were slain, and its blood sprinkled upon the altar of burnt offerings (see on ch. 1:4, 5).
3. All the fat. Not fat scattered throughout the body, but the fat covering certain organs. This, together with the kidneys, was consumed on the altar.
The word translated “fat” is cheleb, from an unused root meaning “to be fat.” The word for “milk” is chalab and differs from “fat” only in the vowel pointings.
5. A sweet savour. Inasmuch as the fat was burned on the altar, “a sweet savour unto the Lord,” it seems inconsistent to hold, as some do, that it was a symbol of sin. Sin is an abomination to God, and nothing symbolizing it was permitted to come on the altar. It was for this reason that leaven, as a symbol of sin, was excluded (ch. 2:11, 12). Psalms 37:20 is sometimes quoted as proof that “fat” signifies sin. But the word translated “fat” is yaqar, and means “beauty,” “magnificence,” or “preciousness” rather than “fat.” It is the same word God uses in calling His people “precious” (Isa. 43:4). The fat was always burned on the altar; God claimed it as His (Lev. 3:16); it was a “sweet savour” unto the Lord; it was precious; it was “the food of the offering” presented to the Lord (v. 16). To “eat the fat of the land” (Gen. 45:18) meant to enjoy the best it had to offer.
6. Of the flock. The rules applied to animals taken from the flock applied also to those from the herd. Note that in this offering, a male or a female might be used, but it must be without blemish. The offerer laid his hand upon the head of the victim and killed it, after which the priest ministered the blood.
9. The whole rump. More accurately, “the tail,” that is, of the broadtail sheep (Ovis laticaudata). The tail of this sheep usually weighs from 10 to 15 lb., and may weigh as much as 50 lb. or more. Because of its weight the tail drags on the ground, and the result is painful sores that lessen the value of the sheep. In olden times, as today, shepherds tied light boards to the tails or made small carts on which the tail could ride.
The tail itself was composed of a mixture of fat and marrow, which, blended with other things, was used as a substitute for butter by those who were not inhibited by God’s command not to eat the fat. In some Eastern countries the tail is still so used.
12. A goat. The procedure in this case was the same as with other sacrifices. The laying on of the hand, the slaying, the sprinkling of the blood—all followed the regular pattern. The fat was carefully removed, and, with the kidneys, burned on the altar.
17. A perpetual statute. God commanded Israel to “eat neither fat nor blood.” “All the fat is the Lord’s” (v. 16), and, “all the tithe … is the Lord’s” (ch. 27:30), are parallel statements. The reason given for not eating fat is that it belongs to God (see on ch. 7:23).
2. Sin. Sin offerings are first mentioned in connection with the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:14), but they were not at that time commanded for the people in general. The words “sin” and “sin offering” are both translated from the same Hebrew word, chaṭṭa’th, a fact that implies a close relationship between the two. “Sin” implied the need of an offering for sin. The bringing of a sin offering implied that sin had been committed. In bringing a “sin offering” to the sanctuary a man was literally bringing the sin represented by it, and for which it was to make atonement. Sin offerings are first mentioned in connection with the erection of the sanctuary and the installation of the priesthood. Previously, burnt offerings alone were in use. The various words used in the Bible to define and describe sin yield the following conceptions:
1.Sin is deviation from a defined standard, a violation of the law of God (1 John 3:4). If we conceive of the law as a straight line to be followed, any deviation from that path would be sin. Such turning aside may be accidental or intentional, but in either case it is sin.
2.Sin is coming short, a failure to reach the goal of perfection. Sin is like an arrow falling short of the target. The archer may have done his best, but lacks strength to bend the bow sufficiently to give the arrow power to reach the target. He comes short. “All have sinned, and come short” (Rom. 3:23).
3.Sin is disobedience. Disobedience is possible only where there is a knowledge of the law and transgression of it. There are different degrees of guilt in disobedience, and God provides for this. But all transgression is serious. The persistently impenitent will eventually commit the sin that is unpardonable.
4.Sin is an offense against God. Man may sin against man, but his first and chief offense is against God. Hence, confession must always first be made to God. The prodigal son had sinned grievously against his father, yet when he returned his first words were, “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee” (Luke 15:18). He stated the matter rightly. Great as were his transgressions against men, his first offense was against God. This is the case in all sin.
Through ignorance. That is, “unwittingly” (RSV), unintentionally, inadvertently, thoughtlessly, or carelessly.
Against any of the commandments. This refers particularly to the Ten Commandments, but includes other commands of God as well.
The entire sanctuary, including its equipment, its priesthood, and its ritual, was concerned with sin. The services revolved about man’s disobedience and need for salvation. Were it not for sin, there would be no need of an altar on which to place the victims; there would be no slaying of animals, no shedding of blood, no ministry of atonement. There would doubtless have been a place where man might meet with God, but the service would be of an altogether different nature.
The evil of sin is not necessarily or only in the thing done. Nor is the same sin committed by different persons equally sinful. Light always brings responsibility, and the identical sin committed by an ignorant savage and by a highly civilized man must be considered and judged in each case from a different point of view. God takes all of this into consideration, and in the chapter before us makes provision for it. Accordingly, there is a certain gradation in the penalties imposed for sins committed by those holding different positions. The one who has light is held more responsible than the one who is in ignorance. In this chapter, four different classes of offenders are considered, and each is treated according to his standing. The sin of a prominent person affects more people than that of one less prominent; hence, it must be dealt with more severely.
3. The priest that is anointed. All priests were anointed, but the high priest only was anointed on the head; hence, by way of pre-eminence, he is here called “the priest that is anointed” (see Ex. 29:7-9; Lev. 8:12, 13). He is designated as “the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured” (Lev. 21:10). Ordinarily he is called simply “the priest.” Only four times in the books of Moses is he called “high priest,” and in each case a literal translation would be “great priest” or “chief priest” (see Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25, 28).
According to the sin of the people. Rather, “thus bringing guilt on the people” (RSV). The high priest stood for and represented the people (see Lev. 16:15, 16; Zech. 3:1-4). In harmony with this principle the prophets always identified themselves with the sins of the people. Although as God’s messengers they rebuked the people for their transgressions, when they prayed to God they approached Him as if they were one with the people in the sins rebuked. So we find them repeatedly saying, “We have sinned,” not merely “they have sinned”; “we have sinned against the Lord”; “we have sinned against him”; “we have sinned, we have done wickedly” (Neh. 1:6; Isa. 64:5, 7; Jer. 3:25; 8:14; 14:7; Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 15).
The representative character of the high priest needs to be stressed. He was the representative man, the one who acted for the people in all things pertaining to the sanctuary. And in the high priest the whole priesthood was summed up.
When Adam sinned, “death passed upon all men” (Rom. 5:12), for “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). Adam was the representative man. Christ was likewise the representative man. Adam, the “first man,” was the head of humanity; Christ, the “second man,” the “last Adam,” “the Lord from heaven,” is the head of the new humanity (1 Cor. 15:45-47). “As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” and “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18, 19). “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).
The high priest, being in a special sense a figure of Christ, was the representative man. He stood for all Israel. He carried their burdens and sins. He bore the iniquity of the holy things. He bore the judgment of Israel. When he sinned, Israel sinned. When he entered the sanctuary, he went in on behalf of the people. And when he appeared before God, they appeared. He represented the people; he was the people. When he sinned, the people sinned, and he was required to bring the same sacrifice for his sin as when the whole nation sinned.
A young bullock without blemish. Both male and female animals could be used in sin offerings; but they must be “without blemish.” It was a young bullock the high priest offered for his sin, as for the sin of all the people (Lev. 4:14).
4. Lay his hand. This was the same ceremony as in all animal sacrifices, except where fowls were used. The laying on of the hand denoted not merely the dedication of the animal to God; but as the offerer leaned heavily upon the head of the victim, he identified himself with it, and it became his substitute (see on ch. 1:4).
The laying on of the hand was accompanied by a confession of the sin that had occasioned the bringing of the sacrifice (ch. 5:5). This principle applied to all sacrifices for sin. The act of laying on the hand was therefore significant, because the sinner in confessing his sin and leaning on the victim declared his faith in God, who provided a substitute to bear the penalty for his sin. The bringing of the sacrifice was not the penalty. The penalty was death, and this the animal paid.
6. Sprinkle of the blood. As there was no one higher in rank than the high priest, who could officiate for him, he ministered the blood himself. In the sacrifices previously considered, the blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering in the court or placed upon its horns. But when the anointed priest sinned, the blood was carried into the sanctuary itself. This was doubtless because his sin was considered more serious than that of anyone else, and of more concern to God. The priest dipped his finger in some of the blood and sprinkled it seven times before the veil, “before the Lord.” Also, he put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, which is also said to be “before the Lord” (v. 7).
It should be noted that the priest did not sprinkle the blood on the veil, but before it. It is also of interest that he used only one finger in sprinkling. Furthermore, this sprinkling was done only when the anointed priest or the whole congregation sinned. We have no record of how often the high priest sinned and brought a bullock as an offering, but it was probably not often. Again, we do not know how often the whole people sinned and had to bring a bullock, but we suppose that this was not often. That the people often sinned individually is evident, but we have few records of national sins, such as are here contemplated. The only definite record we have was when they sinned and danced about the golden calf. True, there were other national apostasies, but as the offering was only to be brought when they repented of their sins, there could not have been many instances.
The sprinkling took place with reference to the law, which was directly behind the veil. However, the blood did not reach the law; the veil intervened. In the daily service the time had not come for the sinner to face the law. That was reserved for the Day of Atonement, which, in type, was the day of judgment for Israel (see on Heb. 10:19, 20).
7. Upon the horns of the altar. Besides sprinkling the blood before the veil, the priest also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of incense. In doing so he touched each horn in turn, making a mark of blood with his finger, thus registering the fact that sin had been committed and that an offering had been brought. The blood that he placed on the horns was from an animal that bore sin, and hence was sin-laden blood. This necessitated that there should be made “an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year” (Ex. 30:10). The unused portion of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
8. The fat of the bullock. See on ch. 3:3, 5. There is no mention here of its being “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” The fact that it was permitted on the altar, however, indicates that it was pleasing to God.
12. Without the camp. The whole bullock was carried without the camp and burned in a clean place, not merely to dispose of it, nor because it was considered unclean, for it is distinctly called “most holy” (ch. 6:25). The book of Hebrews attaches a symbolic meaning to the burning of the victim without the camp. Says Paul, “Jesus also … suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:12, 13). The burning of the body without the camp was then a type of Christ, crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12). Some have seen in this the further thought that He died not for the Jews only but for the world. No sacrificial use was made of the body even though it was considered most holy. As it was not burned on the altar, no redemptive value inhered in it. It was therefore not the body that counted in the atonement, for “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11).
However, it was not the blood as such that atoned, but the blood shed and applied. No atonement could have been effected in the sacrificial service by having an animal killed and the blood poured out on the ground. It was to be caught in a vessel, after which the priest ministered it by sprinkling and otherwise. It was the sprinkled blood that effected atonement, not the unused portion of the blood later poured out on the ground (see on ch. 4:7). The atonement was made by the blood that was put on the horns of the altar, not by that which was poured out on the ground (Ex. 29:12; Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).
It is unfortunate that Christians stress the “spilt blood,” an expression not found in the Bible, and forget the “sprinkled” blood, which alone effected atonement. The spilt blood was the unused blood, that which was poured out at the bottom of the altar after the atonement was completed. Paul speaks of “the blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:24), that is, the blood that was ministered. At the institution of the Passover, Israel was commanded to slay a lamb and strike the blood on the lintel and on the two side posts (Ex. 12:7, 22, 23). God did not promise to save the first-born by virtue of the slaying of the lamb. It was only when the blood was applied that He would “pass over.”
The same principle holds good in all offerings. It is not enough to bring a victim and slay it; the blood must be applied. After His ascension Christ “by his own blood … entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12), and there as a “high priest, … a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:1-3), He ministers on our behalf. This phase of the ministry of Christ is as necessary to our salvation as was the ministry of the blood of the lamb at the time of the first Passover, and as with all offerings in which blood was shed.
The ministry of the blood on the great Day of Atonement was the high point in the yearly service. The killing of the victim was certainly important—without it there would be no blood to minister—but the climax was reached when the high priest went into the most holy with the blood of the Lord’s goat (see Heb. 9:25). Similarly, Christ “by his own blood … entered in once into the holy place” (Heb. 9:12). His death on Calvary was essential—without it He would have nothing “to offer” (Heb. 8:3)—but without the continuing ministry of the blood in the sanctuary above, the sacrifice on Calvary would be unavailing.
Most Christians neither understand nor appreciate Christ’s ministry as our great High Priest. To be sure, they believe in the shed blood; but they fail to understand that there must be a ministry, or application, of the blood to make it effective. It is time that the attention of the world, and of professed Christians in particular, be called to the work in which Christ is now engaged. Many ask why Christ tarries so long. They know He went away, but they know nothing of His mediatorial work. They have not followed the Lamb, and know not where He now is and what work He is doing. It is our duty and privilege, our appointed task as a people, to restore the old paths (see Isa. 58:12), and to present Christ to the world in His mediatorial capacity as our great High Priest. His work is nearly done, and when it is finished He will come in power and glory.
13. The whole congregation. Individuals might sin often and bring the necessary offerings. But it was seldom that the nation as a whole would sin “through ignorance” (see on vs. 2, 6).
Things which should not be done. This includes all sins, great and small, but refers chiefly to the so-called little sins. It is not the flagrant violation that is contemplated here, but the relatively minor “somewhat against any of the commandments” “which should not be done.” The doing of any of these things incurred guilt, and a sin offering must be brought to the door of the sanctuary.
14. When the sin. This presupposes ignorance that what had been done was sin (see on v. 2). Under such circumstances the “whole congregation” was to bring the same offering as that required of the high priest when he sinned. The bullock was provided by the congregation, inasmuch as all were counted guilty. The elders, selected from among the various tribes, brought the bullock to the place of sacrifice, laid their hands on it, and killed it. Nothing is here said of confession, but this is implied in the laying on of hands. Without confession the presentation of an offering would be unavailing, for there would be no transfer of sin from the sinner to the sacrifice. Furthermore, it is not the form of confession, but the fact, that is acceptable with God.
17. The blood. The ministry of the blood was the same as in the case of a priest who sinned (see v. 7). As the priest used only one finger in performing the ministry with the blood, only a small portion of the blood of the bullock was used.
19. His fat. The ritual with the blood being ended, the priest removed all the fat from the bullock, following the same procedure as in the case when the high priest had sinned (see vs. 6-8).
20. The priest shall make an atonement. In the case of the anointed (high) priest nothing is said of atonement or forgiveness. Doubtless he received pardon, as did others, when he confessed his sins. But because the high priest ministered his own sacrifice it would appear that a man could make his own atonement, and the statement is therefore omitted. But here, where the people are concerned, the priest is to make “atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.” The ritual of carrying the bullock outside the camp and burning it in a clean place was the same as when the anointed priest sinned.
22. When a ruler hath sinned. By “ruler” is meant the head of a tribe, or the head of a division of a tribe. Both civil and religious leaders are included—princes (Gen. 17:20), captains (Num. 2:3), chiefs (Num. 3:24, 32), governors (2 Chron. 1:2). The ruler had probably not been aware of his transgression. A ruler would not rank with the anointed (high) priest in his knowledge of the law; hence the offering required of him was of less value than in the case of the high priest.
24. Shall lay his hand. This follows the same pattern as the other offerings, and has the same meaning. In laying his hands upon the victim the sinner identifies himself with it, transfers his sins to it by confession, and presents it as his substitute.
25. The blood. The ministration of the blood of the goat is different from that of the bullock. The priest in this case does not carry the blood into the sanctuary, but catches it in a vessel and proceeds with it to the altar of burnt offering. There he places the blood on the horns of the altar with his finger.
26. Burn all his fat. In all cases, whether of burnt (ch. 1:8), peace (ch. 3:3), or sin offerings (ch. 4:8), the removable fat was burnt on the altar. With this, the priest completed his work on behalf of the ruler who had sinned, and he went away forgiven. There is no instruction here as to what was to be done with the body of the victim. According to ch. 6:26 the flesh was given to the priest, who was to eat it in the holy place in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
27. One of the common people. The procedure was the same as in the case of a ruler, with the exception that the common man was to bring a female rather than a male. The female was somewhat lower in the scale of value than the male, and therefore more easily acquired. The ritual of the blood and the disposal of the fat were the same as for rulers who had sinned (vs. 23-26).
31. For a sweet savour. Inasmuch as the fat was always burned on the altar it must have been acceptable to God, for nothing unclean was ever permitted on the altar.
32. A lamb for a sin offering. A lamb was even less expensive than a goat, and for this reason it was expected that a poor man would bring a lamb. The lamb was therefore considered the poor man’s offering. It is significant that Christ is repeatedly spoken of as the Lamb of God. He is the poor man’s sacrifice. The ritual was in all respects the same as that for a goat.
Provision for a graduated scale with regard to the value of the prescribed offerings reflects both the justice and the mercy of God. In the first place, the value of the sacrifice to be brought was determined by the degree of responsibility of the sinner, and in the second, by his ability to provide an offering.
1. If a soul sin. “If any one sins” (RSV). In the Hebrew Bible vs. 1-13 are joined to ch. 4, evidently for the reason that they deal with the same subject as ch. 4, that is, sin offerings. However, they are of a slightly different character, being borderline cases between sin and trespass offerings, partaking of the nature of both and called by both names.
The voice of swearing. Rather, “a public adjuration” (RSV). The setting is a court scene, where witnesses are called to testify. One refuses to testify and is declared guilty. There are times when unpleasant duties, ones we would prefer to avoid, must be performed.
In telling the truth, we should be careful lest we impute motives, and thus judge our brother. Care should be taken that the alleged facts are in reality facts, and not surmisings. Circumstantial evidence may point the way to the truth, but it may also be completely misleading. Let all beware of drawing unwarranted conclusions.
A case in point is that of a deacon who was seen by several members of the church on the Sabbath day hauling a small load of wood past the meetinghouse, dressed in his everyday clothes. Later he attended the service as if nothing had happened. He was promptly called in question, since the transgression was an open one, but gave no evidence of regret. There was no question as to the facts in the case, and he did not deny what he had done. The witnesses and the accused agreed on what had taken place. His action was a clear violation of the Sabbath. Then he explained.
Earlier that morning he had felt impressed to visit a widow and her two small children, whom he intended to take to Sabbath school. On arriving at the home he found the mother sick and the house without fuel. He went home, changed his clothes, and hauled a small load of wood to the needy family. This the witnesses had seen, but not knowing the circumstances they had drawn the conclusion that he was doing something on Sabbath that should not be done.
A witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He may not elaborate, he may not add, he may not detract, he may not judge the motives that prompted the act. Much injustice and sorrow would be avoided if this principle were more closely heeded.
2. Any unclean thing. People in ancient times did not have the medical knowledge now available. They had no way of knowing that by coming in contact with certain diseases they might become disease carriers. Thus the only safe principle was to avoid everything that looked suspicious. To transgress might lead to epidemics. As a health measure, this principle is still valid.
The Levitical laws were, of course, concerned primarily with moral and ceremonial “uncleanness.” At the same time, many of these regulations had a significance for men’s bodies as well as their souls. Inasmuch as the people were not prepared either to understand or to appreciate the physical aspect, fully at least, this value, though implied, is often not even mentioned. The word tame, translated “unclean,” is never used in the OT except in the setting of Levitical “uncleanness.” Here, in vs. 1 and 4, it is obvious that moral accountability is the object of concern. Inasmuch as the “uncleanness” of vs. 2 and 3 is classed with that of vs. 1 and 4, as being sin of the same type, it too must be essentially a matter of moral accountability. In the Levitical code “uncleanness” is essentially moral or ceremonial guilt, and may or may not imply actual physical “uncleanness.”
3. When he knoweth of it. A man might be ignorant and his act therefore considered excusable. But though ignorant, he might yet become a menace to others as a carrier of infection. Hence, in certain cases he might not be entirely innocent, and must be taught a lesson designed to impress him and others. Nevertheless, full guilt does not attach to one who is ignorant, unless he is willingly so, and had the opportunity of knowing better.
Some deliberately close their eyes to light, assuring themselves that, not seeing it, they are thereby relieved of responsibility for it. But in the judgment we shall all have to give an account, not only for what we know, but for what we might have known had we put forth the effort to learn.
4. If a soul swear. This does not refer to conversation but to the solemn confirmation of a promise to do or to refrain from doing certain things. When men entered into a contract or covenant there was mutual agreement, and this agreement they often confirmed with an oath. If one of the contracting parties forgets his promise, which he confirmed by an oath, or deliberately repudiates it, “when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.”
Failure to keep one’s word is a flagrant sin of our times, and appears to be on the increase. Of this Christians must beware. It is easy to fall in with the ways of the world, and to become slack in the standards God has set.
5. He shall confess. He is guilty, and knows it. A general confession will not suffice. It must be a confession of “that thing.” Nothing less will do.
6. His trespass offering. This consisted of a lamb or a kid of the goats, a female. These were offered in the regular manner, and the priest made atonement for the offerer concerning his sin.
7. Turtledoves. God is compassionate to those too poor to bring the usual sacrifice. The transgressor brought two birds to the priest, who first offered the one for a sin offering, and then the other for a burnt offering.
11. Fine flour. The guilty man might be too poor to bring either turtledoves or pigeons. But even the poorest could at least bring a small portion of flour. He was not to put oil or frankincense on it, for it would then have become a meat offering. Without these, it remained a sin offering.
The priest took a handful of the flour and burned it on the altar, in the same way as “offerings made by fire unto the Lord.” Lest it should be thought a meat offering, God repeats that it is “for a sin offering.”
Here we are confronted with an unusual situation—a sin offering without blood. But there is yet another remarkable thing about it: sin offerings, otherwise, never came on the altar. By way of emphasis, God repeats, “It is a sin offering.” How are we to explain the ritual difference God here permits?
According to Heb. 9:22, “without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin. That is the rule. Leviticus 5:11-13 presents an exception to the general rule. Not all things, but “almost all things are by the law purged with blood” (Heb. 9:22). The fact that in this case a bloodless sin offering effected atonement probably explains the “almost.”
To be sure, there can never be actual remission of sin apart from the blood of Christ. If so, Christ’s death would be in vain. But in type there were cases where remission and cleansing were effected without the immediate shedding of blood.
15. If a soul commit a trespass. The “holy things of the Lord” are the first fruits, tithes, gifts, and whatever else belongs to the service of God. The “trespass” here considered involved either withholding or diminishing, that is, paying less than was due. The offering required for this trespass was “a ram without blemish.” But this was not enough; the one who had trespassed must also make restitution and “add the fifth part thereto.” This provision was a deterrent to deliberate, if temporary, withholding. Where there was question as to the amount involved, the priest was to make an estimate. After restitution had been made, the priest made “an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering” (v. 16).
17. Things which are forbidden. The second situation is much like the first (vs. 14-16), but concerns “any of these things which are forbidden to be done.” These are things which, though not specifically mentioned, come under the displeasure of God.
God deals with principles rather than with details. The Ten Commandments deal with fundamental principles. The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” does not specify what it is that may not be taken. It is all-comprehensive. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal great things”; it does not say, “Thou shalt not steal small things.” It merely says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Similarly, in the case before us God could have gone into detail. Had He done so, some might be tempted to think the things mentioned more serious than some that were omitted. So God includes all transgression in the statement “any of these things which are forbidden.” No one might plead ignorance. This may have seemed a “hard saying,” but it was just.
18. His ignorance. Ignorance is a thing to be repented of. Ignorance is not usually thought of as transgression. God has, and we are to have, compassion on the ignorant. But we are to do all in our power to make amends for our shortcomings.
2. Commit a trespass. From ma‘al, “to act treacherously,” “to be faithless.”
Lie unto his neighbour. A lie is here counted to be, first a trespass against God, then a sin against one’s neighbor. It is inconceivable that a man should lie to his neighbor in that “which was delivered him to keep,” and do so ignorantly. It would certainly seem that he knew he was not telling the truth when he affirmed he had never received that which had been entrusted to him. For him to lie, and in addition keep that which belonged to the neighbor, would be a double transgression; it would be both lying and stealing. The man would be guilty of deliberate sin.
In fellowship. That is, in partnership or in contract. In partnership, the Christian must exercise constant watchcare that each partner receives his share; and in a contract there must be faithful performance by both parties in the agreement. There must be no overreaching, no taking advantage of loopholes, but a jealous care for the interest of the other partner. If this is not done, the man who transgresses is guilty.
A thing taken away by violence. It would be stretching the truth far to claim that this could be done in ignorance. Some have attempted to justify this matter by claiming that the man thought the thing he took was his, and that he had a right to recover it by violence. The man is guilty and must bring his “trespass offering.”
Hath deceived his neighbour. To deceive indicates deliberate planning. Again, the man is guilty.
3. That which was lost. This is somewhat more serious than preceding cases in that the man not only lies, but confirms his lie by an oath. This may have been a legal oath, though probably not. In any case, he is guilty of swearing to a lie.
4. He shall restore. Inasmuch as all these cases require restitution, God prescribes for each an equitable penalty. First comes confession, then restitution. This is to be done “in the day of his trespass offering” (v. 5); in other words, restoration must accompany confession. It may not be delayed.
Restitution is a vital part of the program God sets before the man who would be free from the guilt of sin. Conviction of sin is not enough; sorrow for sin is not enough; confession is not enough. These are all desirable steps toward the kingdom, but they are not enough. They must be accompanied by a repentance so deep and thorough that the soul will not rest until every effort has been made to rectify mistakes that may have been made. This will in many cases include restoration, paying back with interest that which has been stolen, and making every effort to right wrongs. The fruits worthy of repentance that John the Baptist urged upon his hearers included restitution (Matt. 3:8).
“Trespasses” include questionable business transactions, fraudulent representation of values, wrong impressions without actual falsification, intentional crookedness, and any advantage taken of the poor or unfortunate. “Trespasses” include exorbitant charges of all kinds, excessive interest on loans, dishonest work for wages received. The course of many a man who boasts of his business acumen and who receives the approbation and praise of others for his skill in negotiation is not approved in heaven (see Hab. 2:6).
For these and many other things restitution must be made wherever possible. Where this cannot be done, it may be well to follow the instruction of old and “let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest” (Num. 5:8). The present-day application of this instruction would require that the money involved be given to and used in the Lord’s work.
There are times when bankruptcy proceedings may be advisable. The debtor is thus cleared legally from his obligations and is enabled to make a new start. But the Christian is bound by Heaven to consider carefully his responsibility to any who may have been deprived of that which was their due. He is to have a tender conscience, and to act honestly in the sight of God as well as of men. Worldly men have made restitution in such cases, and have been honored in so doing. Whenever possible Christians should do the same.
Lying is one of the popular sins of today, and is gradually coming to be considered respectable. In its various forms, ranging from the bold, barefaced lie to the smooth diplomatic lie or the social “white lie,” it is commonly and universally practiced. In its milder forms it is considered a necessary means of smoothing over a disagreeable situation, and is condoned as an accepted form of speech. To lie gracefully and convincingly is a high social and political attainment, and is considered a necessary accomplishment for holding certain positions.
A lie is a falsehood uttered or acted with the intent to deceive. It is a negation of truth. The father of lies is its creator, blasted reputations and ruined characters are its children. It makes white look black, and black white (Isa. 5:20); it parts husbands and wives, lovers and friends; it creates war and kills its millions; it sears the conscience, destroys confidence and faith, is the companion of thieves, gamblers, and prostitutes, and the bosom friend of rum. It pollutes all that it touches, and is the enemy of all that is noble and true and pure. He that “loveth and maketh a lie” is at last found outside the city with “dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters” (Rev. 22:15).
The Bible is plain on the subject of truth; it will tolerate nothing else. God is the “God of truth” (Isa. 65:16; Ps. 31:5; Deut. 32:4). The Son is truth (John 14:6). The Spirit is truth (1 John 5:6). The Word is truth (John 17:17). The law is truth (Ps. 119:142). All God’s works are truth (Dan. 4:37). His counsels are truth (Isa. 25:1). The judgment is truth (Rom. 2:2). Jerusalem is the city of truth (Zech. 8:3). The church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Christians are to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). Those who do not believe the truth will be damned (2 Thess. 2:12). Not only does God desire an outward conformity to truth; He desires truth in “the inward parts,” in the heart (Ps. 51:6; 15:2).
A passion for truth must activate the Christian. He is a representative of the God of truth, and must not bear false witness in any respect. He must first of all love truth, for it is this that sets him free (John 8:32). Having come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), through obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:22), he is to be sanctified through the truth (John 17:19). The Spirit will guide him into all truth (John 16:13), and as Christ did, so will he bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). His witness to the truth will be in love (Eph. 4:15), and the love will be the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10).
A person who is filled with love of the truth will be truthful in all of life’s relations. He will hate and shun all pretension and hypocrisy; his motives will never be questionable. His yea will be yea, and his nay will be nay (James 5:12). He will not pride himself on his frankness, nor will he unnecessarily wound another’s feelings, but will in meekness instruct “those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). He will have the reputation of being a man whose word can be trusted.
6. His trespass offering. This is the third step. He has sinned against man; this requires restitution. But he has also sinned against God, and that requires a sacrifice.
Thy estimation. There are things whose value may be a matter of opinion, and therefore a cause of dispute. In such cases the priest shall make the valuation. In Ex. 22:1-9 a series of wrongs is enumerated in which the restitution is double, and in some cases even fourfold or fivefold. The difference in the penalties given there and here appears to be due to the fact that there the offender was forced to make restitution by “the judges” (Ex. 22:9), whereas here the acknowledgment appears to be voluntary.
7. Shall be forgiven. Forgiveness is the fourth step, and is dependent on those that precede it. Some of the things mentioned in vs. 2 and 3 are serious sins; but whatever they may be, he who makes confession and restoration “shall be forgiven.”
9. Burnt offering. Individual burnt offerings were discussed in ch. 1, and the continual burnt offering for the nation in Ex. 29:38-42. Here, additional information is given, for Aaron and his sons. The instruction applies primarily to the national morning and evening sacrifices.
10. His linen garment. The priests were required to wear their linen garments even when removing the ashes. These were the same garments they wore when offering sacrifices. All work within the sanctuary was sacred and demanded holiness of life. This in turn was symbolized by purity of garments (Zech. 3:4-7). When they left the sanctuary to carry the ashes to a clean place, they removed the linen garments.
13. Ever be burning. God Himself kindled this fire (ch. 9:24). The Jews affirm that it burned continuously until the Babylonian captivity. Some even claim that it never went out until the final destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. To keep this fire burning required an ample supply of wood. This was gathered by the priests, who once a year invited the people to assist.
14. The meat offering. This information was given to the sons of Aaron. Whenever anyone brought a “meat” (cereal) offering (see on ch. 2:1), God’s part was to be burned on the altar; the rest belonged to the priests. It must be unleavened, and whatever was eaten with it must also be unleavened. It was to be eaten in “the holy place,” which is here defined to be “the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.” The bread was “most holy,” as were the sin offering and the trespass offering. It was so holy that everyone who even touched it must be holy also.
20. The offering of Aaron. Aaron was to offer a cereal offering equal to about 2 dry qt. (2.2 l.) of flour daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. It was to be made of fine flour with oil and baked in pieces. No frankincense is mentioned. It was to be offered on the altar, and no part of it was to be eaten.
25. The sin offering. The sin offerings of both rulers and common people were to be eaten by the priests in the holy place, that is, the court. They were most holy. Whoever touched them must be holy. Even the vessel containing them was holy. In some cases the priest who offered a sacrifice had sole right to the priest’s part. But not so with sin offerings. “All the males among the priests shall eat thereof” (v. 29).
30. No sin offering. This verse deals with the principles that governed the disposition of the bodies of the sacrifices for sin. When the blood of the sacrifice was brought within the sanctuary—as when the anointed priest or the whole congregation sinned—the body was taken outside the camp and burned. When the blood was not taken into the sanctuary but placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering—as when a ruler or one of the common people sinned—the flesh was to be eaten by the priests. The reason for this is explained in ch. 10:16-20.
1. The trespass offering. Or, “the guilt offering” (RSV). In general, all offerings were holy, but that part of each sacrifice devoted to the altar or to the use of the priests was most holy (chs. 2:10; 10:12). Thus the shewbread (ch. 24:9), the incense (Ex. 30:36), the flesh of the sin and trespass offerings, were most holy (Lev. 6:17, 18; 7:1, 6; 14:13; Num. 18:9, 10; see also on Lev. 10:13-20).
3. He shall offer. The ritual followed in the case of the trespass offering was the same as that for the sin offering, but the ministration of the blood differed somewhat. The blood of the sin offering was placed upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering; the blood of the trespass offering was sprinkled on the altar round about. In both cases the fat was burned on the altar, “an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (v. 5).
6. In the holy place. That is, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Here cooking utensils were kept, and here the priests gathered for their common meal. Every priest, though he might have bodily defects that barred him from performing priestly duties, was permitted to eat “the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy” (ch. 21:22, 23).
8. The skin. Nothing is said of the disposition made of the skin of the trespass offerings or of the sin offerings, except that noted in ch. 4:11, 12, 21. The skin of the burnt offering was specifically to be given to the priest that offered it.
14. One out of the whole. That is, one out of whatever number he brought, which was usually ten. The cake was given to the priest, who was to heave it before the Lord. This was done by heaving it up and down by the altar of burnt offering, or by waving it back and forth. Thus it was first presented to the Lord and then given to the priest.
15. The same day. This command was not without good reason. It promoted sanitation, it encouraged social intercourse and liberality to the poor. Of these three reasons sanitation was most important. In a warm country it was difficult to keep perishable food wholesome for any length of time. This would be especially true when a person was away from home, as many of them would be when they came to the Temple. If the offerer attempted to keep it more than two days, putrefaction would likely set in.
It being impossible for the offerer himself to consume the flesh of an animal in one or two days, he would naturally invite others to share it with him. This was what God intended (Deut. 12:11, 12, 17, 18; 16:11). Thus the occasion was made a solemn but happy family gathering (Ps. 42:4; Isa. 30:29). The presence of the invited Levite imparted to the occasion a touch of dignity and gave him an opportunity for instruction.
The riches of the world are unevenly distributed. Some have less than they need; others have far more. God ordains that those who have shall share with those who have not (Deut. 15:7-11). Among those who had little of this world’s goods and should therefore be remembered, were the Levites (Deut. 12:19, 12). Christ’s instruction to “call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” when “thou makest a feast” (Luke 14:12, 13) reiterates these commands of Moses, and reinforces the words of Isaiah (Isa. 58:6, 7).
20. Cut off. See on Ex. 12:15.
23. No manner of fat. This oft-repeated command is based on the explanation that “all the fat is the Lord’s” (ch. 3:16). The fat of animals that died of themselves or were torn by beasts might be used for other purposes, but not eaten (ch. 7:24).
29. Peace offerings. These were discussed at length in ch. 3. Here, certain additional facts are given.
32. The right shoulder. That is, the thigh (see on Ex. 29:27; Lev. 7:14).
35. This is the portion. The stress in ch. 7 has been on the part that belonged to the priests. God ordained liberal provision for His ministry, and intended every Israelite to understand his own responsibility in supporting it. This raised the priesthood high in the estimation of the people. Much of what they gave reverted to the priests.
2. Take Aaron and his sons. Chronologically this chapter follows the last chapter of Exodus, in which the erection of the tabernacle is recorded. The seven intervening chapters contain instruction Aaron and his sons would need before they began their ministration in the sanctuary.
The first qualification for the priesthood was descent from Aaron. Genealogical registers were kept with great care (2 Chron. 31:16-19). One who could not submit legal proof of Aaronic descent was not permitted to minister in the priest’s office (Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64).
The second qualification was freedom from physical deformity. Any defect or injury was sufficient to prevent a son of Aaron from approaching the altar or even entering the sanctuary. Aaronic descent entitled him to support; he might eat of the priest’s portion of the sacrifices and receive a portion of the tithe (Lev. 21:17-23). The priest was, furthermore, to be free from any ceremonial uncleanness and to abstain from wine and strong drink (ch. 10:8-10).
The special function of the priests was to approach God on behalf of the people (Lev. 10:3; 21:17; Num. 16:5). They were to stand, as it were, between a Holy God and a sinful people. Hence, they must themselves be holy. The matter of holiness is repeatedly emphasized in the description of the work of the priests. The high priest, in whom the priesthood centered, is called the “saint of the Lord” (Ps. 106:16). On the golden plate attached to his miter were inscribed the words, “Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36), and it is expressly stated that he was to “bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts” (Ex. 28:38).
But before the high priest and his sons could begin their ministration in the sanctuary, they were to be solemnly set apart for the task. Aaron was to be anointed with the holy oil and his sons were to be sprinkled with it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, where the inauguration was to take place.
6. Washed them. This was a symbol of regeneration (Titus 3:5). They were not to wash themselves, for the purity God required of them was not something they could provide for themselves. Someone else must do the washing for them.
As the two brothers proceeded to the laver their minds must have been occupied with the significance and importance of what they were doing. This was more than an ordinary bath; it was a spiritual cleansing. Aaron could not cleanse himself from sin. Someone must do that for him.
7. Put upon him the coat. After the washing came the investiture of Aaron with the holy garments, his insignia of office. This also was a symbolic act; hence he was not permitted to clothe himself.
By this time Aaron must have felt completely helpless. Was there nothing he could do for himself? Must everything be done for him? Could he not even put on the miter himself? He could do that better than Moses. But no, Aaron must submit to the command of God. He must be made to feel his own insufficiency. He must learn that nothing he could do would be acceptable to God. He must learn the lesson of entire dependence. It was God who was fitting and preparing him for service. It was God who was clothing him with divine righteousness (Ps. 132:9).
Aaron was now fully clothed. He had on the long blue robe, with the bells and the pomegranates, the ephod with the names of the children of Israel engraved upon its 2 beautiful onyx stones, the breastplate with the 12 stones and the Urim and the Thummim, and the miter with its golden crown and the inscription, “Holiness to the Lord.”
10. Anointed the tabernacle. Before anointing Aaron, Moses anointed the tabernacle and its furniture, including the ark, in accordance with God’s command (Ex. 30:26-29).
12. He poured. Having anointed the tabernacle and its contents, Moses then anointed Aaron. This was his coronation as high priest (see Lev. 21:12; cf. Zech. 6:11-13). The anointing was so copious that the oil ran down upon Aaron’s beard and garments (Ps. 133:2).
14. The bullock for the sin offering. This sin offering was not for Aaron and his sons alone, but for the altar also. The altar had a most important function to perform in the ministry of reconciliation, and a special anointing and purification was therefore accorded it.
Throughout the consecration ritual Moses acted as priest. He took the blood and put it upon the horns of the altar; he poured out the rest of the blood at the bottom of the altar; he burned the fat upon the altar; he disposed of the bullock by burning its body outside the camp. Aaron had not yet begun his work, and Moses therefore functioned not only as priest but even as high priest. He went into the most holy to anoint the ark of the testimony (Ex. 30:26; Lev. 8:10).
22. The ram of consecration. The ceremony with the ram of consecration was the last act in the consecration of Aaron and his sons. With it the dedication was completed, and they were empowered to perform the various priestly mediatorial services.
23. Aaron’s right ear. The application of the blood to the ear signified its consecration to the service of God. Henceforth Aaron must hearken diligently to God’s commands, and must close his ears to evil. This lesson is profitable for minister and layman alike. Well would it be were it heeded, for “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).
The thumb. The placing of the blood upon Aaron’s right thumb signified that henceforth his every act should be righteous. The hand stands for the lifework, the various outward acts, the doing of righteousness. Of Christ it was written, “Lo, I come … to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). “My meat,” He said, “is to do the will of him that sent me” (John 4:34).
The great toe. Placing the blood on the toe has a similar meaning. It signifies walking in the light, running on God’s errands, standing for truth and righteousness. Every faculty of the being is to be dedicated to God.
24. The altar round about. The altar had previously been anointed with oil. The blood of the sin offering and the blood of the burnt offering had also been applied to it (ch. 8:10, 15, 19, 24). Now it was sprinkled with the blood of the ram of consecration. It received more attention than any other part of the sanctuary. This was doubtless because of its importance to the atonement. For practically every sacrifice it played an important role.
31. Eat it. This ritual meal concluded the ceremony of consecration. The eating of the flesh of the ram of consecration is in contrast to the eating of the flesh of the sin offering. The eating of the flesh of the ram was to consecrate the priest that they might eat the flesh of the sin offering and bear the sin of the people (ch. 10:17).
35. Seven days. The service for the day was ended, but Aaron and his sons were not permitted to leave until after seven days. This was a time for study, for prayer, for meditation, for going through the ritual again and again, that they should make no mistake when the time came for them to officiate.
1. On the eighth day. The seven days of consecration were past and the time had come for Aaron to offer his first sacrifice. Prior to this time he had not performed any strictly priestly service for the people. His instruction had been thorough, yet it must have been with some anxiety that he faced the day of test.
Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of the people to come with the required sacrifices and begin their work. As they did so, all the people drew near and stood before the Lord (v. 5).
8. Aaron therefore went. Without further hesitation Aaron offered for himself, his sons assisting with the blood. He did everything “according to the manner,” making no mistake.
10. As the Lord commanded. Of all this Moses was an interested observer. He was the one with whom the Lord had communicated and who had instructed Aaron and his sons in what they were to do. Now he watched to see that all things were done according to God’s instructions. It would have been a serious mistake for Aaron to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering upon the altar round about. That must never be done. The blood of the sin offering must be put on the horns of the altar. Again, it would be a serious mistake to put the blood of the burnt offering upon the horns of the altar. That must never be done. The blood of the burnt sacrifice was always sprinkled on the altar round about. The symbolism demanded that everything be done in exactly the manner God had prescribed. Aaron therefore made no mistake.
15. The people’s offering. Having finished offering the sacrifices for himself, Aaron proceeded with the ritual for the people’s offerings. The procedure was somewhat different from the one that was to be followed later, for this was the first time Aaron officiated for the people. Ordinarily, the people’s sin offering consisted of a bullock (ch. 4:14), and its blood was to be brought into the first apartment of the sanctuary (ch. 4:17, 18); but here the sin offering was a goat. And, except on the Day of Atonement, the blood of a goat was not brought into the sanctuary. Aaron had definite instruction in regard to the offering of the day, and he followed these instructions. All was done as Moses had commanded, without error.
22. Aaron lifted up his hand. The people had been interested spectators. They had seen Aaron offer for himself; they had seen him offer for them. And now Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them. It was a solemn and a happy moment, for God had accepted their offerings.
23. The glory of the Lord. Moses and Aaron went in together into the sanctuary. What took place there we are not informed, but it must have been with awe that the two brothers faced the veil separating the holy from the most holy place. We may believe that Moses instructed Aaron in regard to the lamps, the shewbread, and the candlestick, the offering of incense, the sprinkling of the blood before the veil, and the touching of the blood to the horns of the altar of incense. We are not told whether the veil was parted and Aaron received instruction as to what he was to do on the Day of Atonement. The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat was the most sacred act he would ever be called upon to perform.
Suddenly “the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people.” We are not told the exact manner of this demonstration, but it must have been a striking testimony of God’s approval of the building the people had erected for Him, and of Moses and Aaron as His servants. Aaron had been consecrated to the priesthood; now God placed His seal upon him.
24. A fire. This fire could have consumed Moses, Aaron, and all the people (ch. 10:1, 2); instead, it consumed the offerings on the altar. God had fulfilled His promise (vs. 4, 6). According to Jewish tradition the sacred fire imparted upon this occasion was preserved at least until the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, perhaps longer.
God had accepted man’s work. The sanctuary was now dedicated and consecrated. So also were the priests. All preparations were complete for the service that would continue for more than 1,400 years, and then be transferred to the sanctuary above.
1. Nadab and Abihu. These were two of the sons of Aaron, and hence nephews of Moses. Next to Moses and Aaron they occupied the highest positions in Israel and had many advantages and privileges. They had heard the voice of God; they had been with Moses and Aaron in the mount of God; they had seen the God of Israel, and “did eat and drink” (Ex. 24:9-11). They had been greatly favored; but had not profited by their opportunities.
Shortly before the events noted in this chapter they had spent a week in study and meditation, preparing for the day when they should begin their sanctuary service. They had assisted their father as he offered sacrifices, and had brought the blood of the victims to him (Lev. 9:9). They had witnessed the solemn service of dedication, and had themselves been sprinkled with sacrificial blood. They had been thoroughly indoctrinated, and were fully acquainted with the sacredness of God’s work. All of this only made their sin the greater. They were without excuse. When the time came for them to officiate, they did that which the Lord their God “commanded them not.”
Strange fire. Ordinary fire. It was not taken from the altar of burnt offering, whose fire God Himself had kindled and which was therefore sacred (ch. 16:12, 13). In the court of the congregation there were hearths where the priests prepared their food, and it may be that Nadab and Abihu took their common fire from thence.
2. Fire from the Lord. The effect upon the people gathered for the hour of prayer must have been profound. A few months previously Israel had witnessed the great display of God’s power at the giving of the law; then they apostatized and worshiped the golden calf. God was ready to disown them, but at Moses’ pleading they were again restored. Now they had built the tabernacle, which had been accepted, and God had shown His pleasure in the spirit of devotion it represented by sending fire to consume the offering. And now at the time of the evening sacrifice, when the people were gathered expectantly, the stroke came. Two of Aaron’s sons were dead. Rejoicing was turned into grief and perplexity. Had God forsaken them? What did this tragedy mean?
3. Then Moses said. The statement to which Moses refers is probably that of Ex. 19:22: “Let the priests … sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.” Apparently the sons of Aaron had not sanctified themselves. Consecration to the priesthood had wrought no change in their hearts; they themselves were still “common.”
Aaron’s pliant and indulgent disposition had been at the root of the difficulty. Qualms of conscience must have overwhelmed him as he thought of his own weakness a few months previously. True, God had forgiven him; God had accepted his sin offering; but the results of his weakness had not been warded off by repentance. He held his peace.
6. Neither rend your clothes. It was the custom to rend one’s garments in case of great sorrow. This was done by tearing the upper front of the garments, to expose, as it were, the sorrow of the heart. This Aaron and his remaining sons must not do, as it would appear to show displeasure at God’s judgment. Neither were they to bare their heads and present a disheveled appearance, a common Oriental demonstration of sorrow.
7. According to the word of Moses. With grief in his heart Aaron walked calmly about as he officiated at the evening sacrifice and offered incense. Not by word or gesture did he reveal that grief. As the people saw him go about his work calm and unperturbed, they knew that the tragic loss of two sons had not weakened Aaron’s faith in God. They might not understand, but Aaron’s composure calmed their own fears and restored their faith.
9. Do not drink. This prohibition suggests the cause of the transgression. It seems hardly reasonable to believe that God would issue such an edict at this time and under these circumstances except to clarify the true cause of the tragedy.
Lest ye die. Death was the most severe penalty that could be meted out, and stressed God’s attitude toward the use of strong drink. The sin of the young men was not a light matter that could be erased by the offering of a sacrifice. It was deliberate, and reflected scorn for sacred things. It was a major sin and deserved drastic punishment.
10. Put difference. Wine and strong drink can so benumb the faculties that a man fails to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean. This had led the two sons to take common fire as they entered the sanctuary; in their condition they could see no difference. And as far as men could see, there was no difference. Fire was fire, was it not? But God looked on their hearts and saw something that men could not see. There was a difference. Similarly, the first day of the week is as good as the seventh day, to human reasoning. There is no difference—except in God’s command. And that makes a vital difference, a difference between life and death.
Any form of intemperance blurs the difference between the holy and unholy, and between the clean and unclean, between the right and wrong. The use of spiritous liquors affects all the faculties and disturbs the orderly processes of the mind. He who drives and drinks is a menace to himself and to others, and a potential murderer. His mind is confused, his reflexes are slow, his sight is unreliable, and his sense of responsibility has all but vanished.
The danger is not confined to those who are actually “drunk.” Even a small amount of liquor may cause disaster. The moderate drinker is a social liability, and may do untold harm. The very fact, of which he boasts, that he can “hold” his liquor and control himself, may lead others to think they can do the same. The drunkard wallowing in his filth may disgust the onlooker and thus serve as a warning. The moderate drinker tempts others to follow him by the very fact that he stays “respectable.” Of the two, the moderate drinker, in the end, does the more harm.
Not only are the physical faculties affected by drink, but the moral as well; and this may be the worse of two evils. Assault, murder, rape, disloyalty, take on another aspect to the man who drinks. Under the influence of wine men will do what they would never consider doing were they sober. Only the judgment will reveal the sin of intoxication in its true dimensions. God’s warning to Aaron and his sons is fully applicable today. Men cannot drink and yet have a clear perception of the difference between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean (Isa. 28:7).
This instruction is particularly addressed to leaders. Teaching is more than oral instruction; it includes example as well as precept. But what if the teacher’s own sense of right and wrong is blurred, and his conduct belies his words? Of all men, those who teach others, whether in state or church, must have a constantly alert mind, ready to cope with whatever problems may come before them. As we consider some of the decisions arrived at in councils of state, and know of the liquor consumed on such occasions, we are reminded that God’s counsel not to drink wine or strong drink is present truth.
11. That ye may teach. The priests were teachers. It was their work to instruct the people in the statutes and ways of God. But how could they do this if they themselves were unable to discern the difference between right and wrong? With a befuddled brain it is impossible to teach or lead others in the way they should go.
Spoken … by the hand of Moses. To this day there are some who disparage Moses. Let such know that it was God who spoke through him, for in these words God endorsed his life and work. Christ said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. … But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47). True, some provisions were for Israel alone, and applied to local conditions. But such can easily be discerned. The eternal principles that God communicated “by the hand of Moses” are of as much force and value as ever. Let every Christian ponder the words of Christ: “If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” This pronouncement cannot lightly be put aside, for it was spoken by Christ.
13. Ye shall eat it. In the confusion that followed the death of his two sons, Aaron had omitted eating the portion of the meat offering that was his due. A tragedy had occurred, but this must not affect the prescribed ritual. The work must go on in spite of it.
14. Thy daughters with thee. This particular meat offering evidently included the peace offering, as Aaron’s daughters were to have a share in it (ch. 9:17-21). The meat offerings were most holy, and of them only the priests were to eat. Of the peace offerings the whole family, as well as other “clean” persons, might partake.
15. As the Lord hath commanded. The idea that nothing must hinder the work of God, that circumstances must not interrupt the sanctuary ritual, became deeply rooted in the mind of the priesthood as the years went by. It came to an extreme test in the final capture and destruction of the Temple under the Romans, a.d. 70. It was the time of the evening sacrifice. Jerusalem had already been taken, but the Temple still stood. Solemnly and unperturbedly the priests carried out the ritual as the Romans scaled the walls and entered the Temple precincts. The buildings were set on fire, and flames were all about. But with slowly measured steps the priests continued their work, not even looking about. Nothing must interfere with the work of God.
Royalty learns the same lesson. A bomb may explode near the royal carriage, but the king is not supposed to notice it. He must retain his composure and permit nothing to ruffle him. The parade must go on, and there must be no looking back.
Jesus’ answer to certain would-be disciples who chose to make personal matters first may appear hard and unfeeling (see Luke 9:59-62). Few duties are considered more urgent than that of caring for one’s parents. Yet even these—and they may be called sacred duties—must not stand in the way of doing the work of God. The work must go on.
16. Moses diligently sought. Moses was still in charge, making sure that all was done as God commanded. When a goat was used for a sin offering, the blood was not carried into the sanctuary but placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. According to the law, the flesh in such cases should be eaten by the priests (ch. 6:26). That day a goat had been offered as a sin offering (ch. 9:15), and since the blood was not carried into the sanctuary, the flesh should have been eaten. This had not been done; consequently, the symbolism of the service had been effectively marred.
In failing to eat the flesh Aaron also failed to bear the sins of the people. He could not make atonement for sins he did not bear. This was what made the mistake so serious. The sins that the goat bore should have been transferred to the priests, who would make atonement for them. But in this case there could be no transfer because the priests had not eaten the flesh. All the goat could do was to die. But the work of intercession remained to be done.
He was angry. Moses was noted for his meekness (Num. 12:3), but that did not prevent righteous indignation. At one time his indignation was so great that he threw down the two tables of stone and broke them in pieces, an act for which God did not rebuke him (Ex. 32:19). God Himself was angry (Ex. 32:9, 10). Moses’ anger did not immediately subside, for when he saw the golden calf he ground it to pieces and made Israel drink the water (Ex. 32:20).
There are times when righteous indignation may appropriately be displayed. It is at such times, doubtless, that Paul’s advice applies, “Be ye angry, and sin not” (Eph. 4:26). Of himself Paul says, “Who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:29). When Paul saw others mistreated, he was indignant. The word here translated “burn” means “to be set afire.” When Moses broke the tables of stone his “anger waxed hot.” For this Aaron reproached him (Ex. 32:19, 22), feeling there was no occasion for anger. But, as pointed out, the Lord agreed with Moses that there was just cause for anger. His anger was due to zeal for God and His cause, not to personal pride or vindictiveness.
19. Should it have been accepted? Though Moses had addressed Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and rebuked them, it was the father who answered. Aaron knew that eating the sin offering represented taking the sins of the offerer upon himself, as Moses had said. But with what had happened and his own responsibility, in part, for it, he did not feel that he could bear the sin of others. He had all he could do to bear his own. He could but feel grieved at the death of his sons, and may even have felt a measure of resentment. He apparently felt that in his present state of mind his service as typical sin bearer would be quite unacceptable to God.
20. Content. The word thus translated may also mean “to cause to be joyful,” or “to cause to please.” Moses saw that Aaron had not been negligent nor had he deliberately omitted a known duty, without due reason. Moses accepted Aaron’s explanation, and adjusted his own attitude accordingly.
2. These are the beasts. The principles set forth in this chapter were designed of God to protect those who love and choose to serve Him against the use, as food, of those forms of animal life that would bring injury to their bodies. In a number of instances, as will be seen, it is not yet possible to identify the animals named. Where doubt exists, that fact is noted. This measure of uncertainty, however, will not prove to be an insurmountable problem to any Christian who purposes in his heart not to “defile the temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:17) but to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). For such a person the fundamental principles as outlined here will prove to be a sufficient guide.
4. These shall ye not eat. The camel appears to be cloven-footed, but there is a ball at the back of the foot, resembling a heel. Hence it is counted unclean.
Unclean. The Jews were to “have“ all “unclean” things “in abomination,” shaqaṣ (vs. 11, 13, 43). This word is also translated “detest” (Deut. 7:26) and “abhorred” (Ps. 22:24). The creatures here listed as “unclean” are hygienically unfit for human use as food (DA 617; 2T 96; see on Gen. 9:3).
5. The coney. From shaphan, a “hider.” Cony is the old English name for rabbit, but the description of the “coney” given in the Bible does not fit the rabbit. Solomon calls the conies “a feeble folk,” and adds that they make “their houses in the rocks” (Prov. 30:26). Some commentators have called them “rock badgers.” The rock badger is a kind of animal not unlike a guinea pig in size, appearance, disposition, and habitat.
6. The hare. Scientifically speaking, the hare does not chew the cud, because it is not equipped to do so. But it does chew its food in a manner of suggestive of chewing the cud, and is here counted a ruminant, that is, a chewer of the cud. It is unclean because it does not divide the hoof.
He cheweth the cud. The problem of scientific accuracy is not involved here, for the Scriptures speak in the language of the people. To their way of thinking, the hare appeared to chew the cud. When we say that the sun “sets” no one considers us scientifically in error, though, strictly speaking, the sun does not “set” at all. A whale is sometimes called a “fish,” when technically it is not a fish but a mammal. The Bible should not be criticized and called unscientific when it uses common expressions.
7. The swine. Of all animals prohibited by law, the swine was considered the most unclean (see Isa. 65:3, 4; 66:17). This is not the place to discuss at length the harm of eating swine’s flesh. For the Christian it is sufficient to stress God’s attitude toward it. There must be something unwholesome about the use of swine’s flesh, or God would not speak as He does. He created the swine and knows what they are. He prohibits their use as food.
Christ did not think highly of swine or He would not have permitted the destruction of some 2,000 of them (Matt. 8:31, 32; Mark 5:13). We do not know the monetary value of those swine. Today they would bring a considerable sum of money, and no doubt represented a large investment then. Two men had been restored in mind and body, but at the cost of 2,000 swine. Christ considered the men worth it; the people thought otherwise.
Whatever men may think of swine’s flesh as an acceptable article of diet, God here disapproves of it. God does not change His mind (Mal. 3:6); and it is certain that swine have not changed their nature. We do well to heed His counsel.
9. Fins and scales. God would have His people make use only of those foods that are best for them. Here He differentiates between the clean and unclean creatures that inhabit the waters. Those that have both fins and scales He places on one side, and those lacking either or both, on the other. By indicating those that may be eaten, He thus eliminates all others.
13. The fowls. No general rule is given for distinguishing between clean and unclean birds. Those prohibited, 20 in number, are simply named, the inference possibly being that all others are permitted. Some commentators believe, however, that the list of 20 was not intended to be exhaustive, but that it refers only to those with which the Hebrews were acquainted.
The ossifrage. This and the osprey are both birds of prey, and are therefore unacceptable as food.
14. The kite. A bird of prey belonging to the falcon family, having pointed wings and a long forked tail.
After his kind. This expression indicates all members of basic types, of each of which but one is named (see vs. 15, 16, 22).
16. The owl. Probably the ostrich, as in the margin of Job 30:29; Isa. 34:13; 43:20. It should be noted that differences of opinion exist as to the identity of some of the birds listed.
The cuckow. Probably the sea gull.
17. The little owl. From a Hebrew word different from the word translated “owl” in v. 16, and probably translated correctly here.
The great owl. Perhaps the ibis or the Egyptian eagle owl.
18. The swan. Possibly the glossy ibis or the water hen. The ASV gives it as “horned owl.”
The gier eagle. Most likely the Egyptian vulture, a bird of unclean and disgusting habits.
19. The heron. This denotes a bird of greedy habits, probably the plover.
The lapwing. This may be another variety of plover, or perhaps the “hoopoe” (LXX and RSV), a bird with a slender, curved bill.
The bat. Here classed among the birds, though it is a quadruped, probably because of its flight habits.
20. Fowls that creep. That is, “winged insects” (RSV), or creeping things that have wings.
22. The beetle. Probably the cricket or a species of locust.
The four insects here listed were commonly used as food in ancient times, as they are today, in the Orient. They were prepared in different ways. Usually they were thrown alive into boiling water with salt in it, and the heads, wings, and legs were pulled off. Then they were roasted, baked, stewed, or fried for immediate use, or were dried, smoked, and stored. They were eaten with salt, or with spice and vinegar. In some Oriental markets today dried locusts are sold by weight or by number, strung on a thread.
23. All other flying creeping things. That is, winged insects other than those specifically named. The fact that many insects carry disease accounts for the scrupulous care to be taken after coming in contact with them (vs. 23-25).
29. Creeping things. This is a miscellaneous group including reptiles, rodents, and other creatures.
The weasel. The Hebrew word thus translated designates an animal that glides or slips away, and thus fits the weasel.
The mouse. Probably what we mean by “mouse,” though it doubtless includes other small rodents, such as rats.
The tortoise. Better, the great lizard, or possibly the “land crocodile” (LXX). It is a large lizard, often 2 ft. long. Even today the Arabs make a broth of its fresh flesh. In other countries the flesh is dried and used as a charm or medicine.
30. The ferret. The word thus translated occurs here only in the OT. It probably refers to the gecko or wall lizard. It emits a plaintive wail, and its toes are equipped with vacuum cups that enable it to adhere to vertical surfaces.
The chameleon. The word thus translated means “the strong one.” Some think this refers to the frog, from the great muscular power it exhibits in leaping. Others consider it as being the land crocodile (see on v. 29).
The lizard. Probably the same as found in most countries. There are many kinds, and all are here included in the general term “lizard.”
The snail. Probably a species of “lizard” (LXX).
The mole. From tinshemeth, “lizard” or “chameleon.”
39. If any beast. The prohibition against touching a dead body applied also to the carcass of a beast whose flesh might be eaten.
40. He that eateth. It is here implied that some might eat the flesh of an animal that dies of itself. The law strictly forbade the use by anyone of “any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field” (Ex. 22:31). The priests were to eat nothing that “dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts” (Lev. 22:8). Nevertheless, there might be cases where it was eaten, perhaps unknowingly or from economic necessity. As eating it was a matter of ceremonial defilement, provision was made for ceremonial cleansing.
The prohibition against eating that which was torn of beasts or died of itself was doubtless based on the fact that in such cases the blood would largely remain in the carcass and not be drained out.
44. Ye shall be holy. Apparently there is a close connection between holiness and dietary habits. Holiness therefore includes obedience to the laws of God that relate to the physical being.
1. The Lord spake. The preceding chapter dealt with uncleanness occasioned by contact with various “unclean” creatures. Chapters 12 to 15 deal with personal uncleanness, both physical and ceremonial, that does not involve moral transgression. Aaron is not mentioned here as in chs. 11 and 13.
2. A man child. This was the desire of every woman in Israel, for Messiah was to be of the “seed” of the “woman” (Gen. 3:15).
The separation for her infirmity. “Her menstruation” (RSV). The law here referred to is stated at length in ch. 15:19-33.
3. Circumcised. This was in recognition of the covenant relationship, and brought the child symbolically under the bond of the covenant. This rite was first practiced in the case of Isaac (Gen. 17:10, 11; 21:4), the son of the promise (Gal. 4:23), in token of the fulfillment of the covenant promise concerning his birth.
4. The blood. The first six days following childbirth were critical for the mother, and often there was a considerable loss of blood. After a week the crisis was supposed to be past. For 33 days the mother was not permitted to come into the sanctuary or to participate in religious ceremonies. She was not to attend any public gathering. It was the mother, and not the child, who was considered unclean.
5. A maid child. The reason for a period of uncleanness much longer than in the case of a male child is not given here or elsewhere.
6. A burnt offering. She was not to offer this herself. She only brought it to the tabernacle and gave it to the priest, who offered it for her. She was also to present a sin offering, which the priest offered for her.
This procedure was different from the usual order of early times, in which the offerer did his own slaying. There was another difference as well. When a sin offering and a burnt offering were brought, the sin offering always came first, and was followed by the burnt offering. In this case the burnt offering took precedence. Again, the sin offering was always the more prominent and expensive one. Here the reverse is true. The burnt offering came first and consisted of a lamb, whereas the sin offering came last and was the least animal offering ever brought, a pigeon or a turtledove.
Whatever man does bears the taint of sin. Hence sin offerings were prescribed in many cases where, to the uninstructed, it would seem needless to do so. This was especially apparent in the sin offerings at the dedication of the sanctuary and the installation of the priesthood, yet they deeply impressed the people with the sinfulness of sin. On the occasion of childbirth there appears to be an intentional minimum emphasis on sin, and the offering required was merely a token sacrifice. There was no confession or laying on of the hand.
7. She shall be cleansed. In ancient times the lot of woman was not a happy one. She did much of the hard work that would ordinarily fall to a man. This is the case even today in many lands, where work both in the house and in the field is done largely by women. Little consideration was given in the case of childbirth; in fact, cruel and inhuman practices were the rule.
It was under conditions such as these that God made provision for the mothers of Israel, prescribing for them a period of comparative rest and isolation lasting for some weeks. They were to enjoy rest and quiet, time in which to regain their strength.
The rules of childbirth in this chapter show God’s tender care for the mothers. Women have an honored place in the plan of God, and rightly so. Many of them have become leaders, and some, prophets. Through the trying experiences of life they have God’s protecting care, and are invited to come to Him with their perplexities (see DA 512). Let all give them due honor.
2. The skin of his flesh. This expression appears only once in the Bible, and it seems to refer to the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis.
Leprosy was prevalent in Egypt in olden times. It was doubtless there that Israel first came into actual contact with it. Yet, in mercy, God promised to protect them from the diseases of Egypt should they obey Him (Ex. 15:26).
A rising, a scab. Rather, “a swelling or an eruption” (RSV). Whenever this occurred the man was to be brought to Aaron or to one of the priests for examination. The expression, “he shall be brought,” implies a man’s natural reluctance to go himself, knowing what it would mean to him and his family were he found infected. For this reason, he was to “be brought.”
The plague of leprosy. The word “leprosy” is derived from a word that means “to strike down,” “to strike to the ground.” Leprosy was therefore a “stroke.” The Jews considered a person stricken with leprosy to be smitten of God.
In the time of Israel, leprosy was considered the most terrible of all afflictions. It was thought to be a direct punishment from God for evil done. Whoever was a sufferer from it—be he prince or peasant—was excluded from society and considered worthy of little sympathy or compassion, an outcast among men.
Some critics suggest that ch. 13 treats of seven different diseases, but that the writer, not being a physician, erroneously believed them to be various aspects of the same disease, and ignorantly called them all leprosy. There is no agreement among critics, however, as to what these seven diseases are. If modern scientists wish to differentiate between varying forms and stages of the plague and give them different names, such is their privilege. The Bible was written for common people and is not particularly concerned with modern, scientific definitions. It uses common terminology designed for the common man.
The Bible gives no information concerning the origin, contagiousness, or cure of the disease. It was considered, as stated above, a punishment for sin. This, indeed, appears to be the case with Miriam (Num. 12:10-15), Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27), and Uzuriah (2 Chron. 26:16-21). But whatever the cause, the sufferer was isolated, driven from home, not permitted to enter any walled city, excluded from the sanctuary, and not allowed to attend any gathering whatever. Upon the approach of another human being, he was to cover his lips and cry, “Unclean, unclean.” Should he enter any house or dwelling, it too became “unclean,” as did anyone who touched him.
The disease in its first stages was marked only with some slight spot upon the skin, which gave no pain or other inconvenience, but it persisted stubbornly. Sometimes months and even years, often many years, intervened between the first appearance of the spots and their full development. Sometimes the symptoms would nearly disappear and give hope of recovery, only to reappear and become more active than ever. In advanced stages the person presented a loathsome sight. The nose and fingers might drop off, the eyelids disappear, the sight completely vanish, and the sufferer look more like an apparition than a living being.
His was a living death. His voice became a grunt, his breath unbearable, his contorted joints buried in or completely dislocated by tubercles, and his body covered with black-blue or leaden-colored patches of raw flesh where the disease had not yet completed its work. The affliction spread until it reached some vital organ, and then culminated in the death of the victim. No more loathsome sight than that of a leper can be conceived. Forsaken by relatives and friends, he was a pitiful spectacle in every way. No wonder men considered him forsaken of God.
One of his sons. It was not necessary that the high priest do the examining. It might be done by any of the priests. According to the Talmud, those of the Levites who were debarred from serving as priests because of bodily imperfections could serve as examiners.
3. The priest shall look. He was to examine the infected area, for it might, or might not, be leprosy. There were two signs for which he was to look, white hair in the spot and a depression in the skin—Jews ordinarily have dark or black hair. Where these two conditions were found to exist, he was pronounced unclean.
4. Deeper. That is, below the outer skin. Leprosy had a deeper cause than the outer skin, but it was there that it first manifested itself.
11. Old leprosy. There would doubtless be cases where a man had failed to present himself to the priest at the first occurrence of any questionable sign of possible leprosy, and where the family had neglected to bring him to the priest, knowing what an unfavorable report would mean. When conditions could be hidden no longer, he went or was brought to the priest. If there was a swelling in the flesh, if the hair in the spot had turned white, and there was “quick raw flesh in the rising” it was “an old leprosy,” and the priest should immediately declare him unclean. There was no need to quarantine him for further observation; he need not be shut up for later examination.
13. Pronounce him clean. This case has caused much discussion. Two views have been held in regard to it: (1) Either the person did not have leprosy at all, but some harmless eruption, or (2) he had had leprosy and was cured. The first of these considerations would seem to be ruled out by the statements, “the leprosy cover all the skin” (v. 12), and “the leprosy have covered all his flesh.” However, it may be that this case of “leprosy” bore only superficial resemblance to what we know as leprosy today (see Additional Note at close of chapter).
18. And is healed. The fourth type of suspected leprosy arose from an abscess or boil. Such a spot is peculiarly subject to infection. The procedure for diagnosis was similar to that of the first case (vs. 2-8).
24. A hot burning. The fifth type of suspected leprosy developed from a burn, which, like a boil, made the skin susceptible to infection. The inspection by the priest and the general procedure for diagnosis are the same as in the previous case (vs. 18-23).
29. Upon the head. The sixth type of suspected leprosy was in the hair or the beard.
38. Bright spots. This is merely a harmless eruption upon the skin, but is included lest some might mistake it for leprosy and so cause undue anxiety to the person and the family. The “freckled spot” is not infectious.
42. In the bald head. Baldness of the head does not constitute uncleanness. But infection may take place there as well as other places, and if a spot appears, it is to be dealt with as in the other cases. The spot in this case is reddish-white, accompanied by a swelling.
45. His clothes shall be rent. A leper wore garments of mourning, and was supposed to act as if death had already gained the victory over him. Rent garments were the customary sign of calamity and deep sorrow (Job 1:20; 2:12; Matt. 26:65). His head was to be “bare,” or rather, unkempt. The hair was neither cut nor combed, and the appearance disheveled. In the latter stages of the disease the eyelids, ears, and nose sloughed off, and the cheek bones became exposed. The victim was about as loathsome a sight as could be imagined. Should he seek refuge under a tree, anyone in the shade of the same tree was considered defiled.
The leper was to dwell alone, without the camp, and could under no circumstances enter a city. He was dependent on charity for a living. Leprosy was truly a “living death.”
47. The garment. That is, any article of clothing. The garments worn by the Israelites were mostly made of wool or linen. Under certain climatic conditions moldy spots might appear upon them.
51. Fretting leprosy. That is, “malignant leprosy” (RSV).
2. The law of the leper. The purification of a leper is given in more detail than that of the purification for any other defilement. As the leper was excluded not only from the sanctuary but from the camp, there were two ceremonies included in the restoration. The first entitled him to reenter the camp and associate with his brethren. The second, a week later, was performed in the court of the tabernacle and restored him to full fellowship and to all the privileges of the covenant relationship.
3. Out of the camp. The first ceremony, which restored the leper to the camp, took place outside the camp.
4. Two birds. Undomesticated birds, says the Talmud; possibly because a tame bird would not fly away as required by the symbolism (v. 7). Some commentators compare the two birds to the two goats used in the Day of Atonement service, the one the Lord’s goat, the other the goat for Azazel. To this there are weighty objections. There is nothing said of atonement in connection with the birds. Cleansing is mentioned, but it should be remembered that the birds were not used for cleansing. The man had been already pronounced clean. In the case of the birds there was no blood sprinkled on the altar for atonement. In fact, the ceremony did not take place at the sanctuary at all, but out in the field. The birds were not of a kind used in any sacrifice at the altar; they were wild birds. The blood used was blood mixed with water, a drop or two in a vessel large enough to hold the cedarwood, which, according to the Talmud, was one cubit long. It was therefore a very weak solution, a token solution, and apparently had no symbolic atoning properties. The birds are not said to be a sin offering, or a trespass, or burnt, or peace, or meat offering. They were, in fact, not sacrifices at all. When the ceremony was finished, the man was not permitted to go to the sanctuary. Indeed, he could not even go to his own tent. It was not until seven days later that the man was permitted to offer his meat, trespass, and burnt offerings. At that time atonement was made (vs. 18-21, 29, 31). See p. 1111.
6. Cedar wood. We are not informed as to the meaning of the cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet. Perhaps the fragrant cedarwood suggested the fragrant incense that was used only in the sanctuary. Hyssop was symbolic of cleansing (Ps. 51:7). The “scarlet” was a tongue or band of twice-dyed wool used in tying the hyssop to the cedar, since both were dipped in the blood.
7. Let the living bird loose. Before letting the bird go, however, he sprinkled seven times the person to be cleansed, and pronounced him clean. He then commanded the man to wash his clothes, to shave, and to wash himself. After that he might enter the camp. It must have been a joyful company that escorted him into the camp. But he was not yet fully restored. He had not offered a sacrifice. He had not yet been to the sanctuary. He could not even enter his own tent. But he had been found clean, and he was happy.
The ceremony constituted a beautiful picture of what God had done and would do for the leper. A wild bird is killed, and another dipped in its blood and set free. This is a picture of the leper doomed to death, and of his release. Indeed, he was already dying. But he is healed, and the healing miracle performed for him is symbolically related to blood and water. There is only a hint of blood, as it were, a drop or two, but it is sprinkled on him, and he is declared clean. The real sacrifice has not yet been made. The man has not been to the altar. The blood of the wild bird has no cleansing virtue. But presently the priest will take a lamb, and atonement will be made.
10. On the eighth day. A week after the first ceremony, outside the camp (vs. 3-8), the leper appeared at the door of the sanctuary for the final rites.
Three tenth deals. Three omers, or about 6 qt.
One log of oil. This would be approximately 6/10 pt. (0.31 l.), dry.
12. A trespass offering. It is of note that a trespass offering was required in the case of a leper’s cleansing, and also that no mention is made of a peace offering, which usually accompanied a trespass offering. The reason for requiring a trespass offering is far from clear. Such an offering was to be presented in all cases where there was restitution to be made; otherwise a sin offering would be required. The question may be asked, What had the leper done that he must make restitution for? It appears that where a trespass offering was brought instead of a sin offering, the one to be cleansed placed his hand upon the animal and confessed his sins. Although this is not mentioned here, it was doubtless done (see Lev. 5:5; Num. 5:7).
There are five points in which the trespass offering for the cleansing of a leper was distinctive: (1) The animal presented was not to be of any stipulated value, as in the ordinary trespass offering (Lev. 5:16; 6:6). (2) It was waved, whereas the ordinary trespass offering was not waved. (3) It was waved by the priest, whereas the ordinary wave offering was waved by the offerer whose hands were guided by the priest (ch. 7:30). (4) The whole animal was waved (ch. 14:12), which was true in only one other case (ch. 23:20). (5) Oil accompanied the presentation of the offering.
The reason most often advanced to account for a trespass offering instead of a sin offering is that the Lord had been deprived of the services of the leper during all the years of his sickness. But this could have been true only where the person had purposely done something that incapacitated him for service.
If a man so lives as to impair his health, he deprives God of service that he owes Him. In the nature of the case, such a man should offer a trespass offering and make restitution as far as possible. Too many give their best years to the world, and when they are old and sick they turn to God. God will accept such; but the fact remains that they have deprived God and humanity of service they could and should have rendered, had they early in life dedicated themselves to Him.
14. The tip of the right ear. This part of the ritual was similar to that of the consecration of the priest, and perhaps had the same meaning (ch. 8:23).
16. The oil. This part of the ceremony is peculiar to the rites of purification for leprosy. In no other case is oil ever sprinkled. Blood and oil are used together (ch. 8:30), but not oil alone.
19. The sin offering. After the trespass offering the sin and burnt offering followed. The trespass offering had effected atonement (v. 18). All past neglect had been forgiven. Finally, the priest offered the sin offering and the accompanying burnt offering.
21. If he be poor. A poor man might substitute two turtledoves or two young pigeons for the two lambs required for the sin offering and the burnt offering. However, there was no substitution for the lamb of the trespass offering. That must be furnished whether he was rich or poor. Also, there was a diminution in the amount of flour required, for 1/10 deal of flour (about 2 qt., or 2.2 l.) was accepted instead of 3/10, as was the case in v. 10. The log of oil remained the same.
With these exceptions the ritual was carried on as described in vs. 10-20. The man received forgiveness for all past delinquencies, and atonement was extended. He was restored to full membership in the congregation and could again participate in the various religious services.
34. I put. This may or may not imply a direct act of God. In the Bible many such expressions occur in which there is clearly no reference to an act of God. For example, God feeds the birds (Luke 12:24). When He puts a plague in a house, it may be a direct act of God, or it may be a result of the man’s failure to build wisely.
49. He shall take to cleanse the house. The house was not merely to be cleansed with the blood of the bird and with running water, but also with “cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet” (v. 52).
2. A running issue. That is, “a discharge” (RSV).
This chapter deals with various kinds of defilement, both of men and of women. These defilements did not imply moral transgression, though they defiled both the person concerned and also others who came in contact with him. Some occur in the natural course of life, such as that of a woman in “the time of her separation” (v. 25) or in an “issue” of “blood” (v. 19), or of a man during sleep (v. 16). We conclude that the other defilements mentioned do not result from sin but from normal body functions or from abnormal conditions.
3. His uncleanness. Six distinct types of cases are mentioned in this chapter: (1) Abnormal male conditions (Lev. 15:2-15; cf. Lev. 22:4; Num. 5:2). (2) Normal male conditions (Lev. 15:16, 17; cf. Lev. 22:4; Deut. 23:10, 11). (3) Normal conjugal relations (Lev. 15:18; cf. Ex. 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:5; 1 Cor. 7:5). (4) Normal female conditions (Lev. 15:19-23; cf. Lev. 12:2; 20:18). (5) Inopportune conjugal relations (Lev. 15:24; cf. Lev. 18:19; 20:18). (6) Abnormal female conditions (Lev. 15:25-30; cf. Matt. 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43).
14. Two turtledoves. In the first and sixth cases, listed in the comment on v. 3, where abnormal physical conditions exist, a sacrifice was required; in the others, none. The sacrifice specified was the least of all bloody offerings—a dove or a pigeon for a sin offering, and the same for a burnt offering (see vs. 29, 30).
31. That they die not. Whoever should venture to come to the sanctuary when thus defiled would thereby defile it also, in spite of the fact that the personal defilement was in most cases involuntary and did not require a sacrifice. These regulations indicate God’s interest in personal health and sanitation, and at the same time served to emphasize the sacredness of holy things. Ceremonial defilement was symbolic of moral defilement. In the Levitical laws the difference between actual sin and uncleanness is clearly distinguished.
God hates sin. He has seen its beginning and its outworking, and He knows what it is. He also hates uncleanness of all kinds, even though it may not be specifically called sin. God makes a difference between sin and uncleanness, and does not charge moral delinquency for that which is merely unclean. But neither does God fail to make men know that uncleanness of all kinds is displeasing to Him. This lesson should not be lost on us. God requires holiness. He requires cleanliness; He requires becoming modesty and humility; He requires that we do not benumb our sensibilities by anything whatsoever that tends to make us less aware of His voice.
1. The Lord spake unto Moses. Even though Aaron had been appointed high priest, God still recognized Moses as the leader and gave Aaron instructions through him.
2. That he come not. This was soon after the death of the two sons of Aaron, recorded in ch. 10. Though there were yet some months until the Day of Atonement, God instructed Aaron relative to it, that he might have sufficient time to become acquainted with the ritual.
The vail. There were two veils in the sanctuary, one leading from the court into the first apartment, the other separating the two apartments. The veil here referred to is the second veil (Heb. 9:3), the one before the mercy seat (Ex. 26:31, 32). It was before this veil that the priests stood as they offered incense upon the altar of incense, before the mercy seat. Their sight could not pierce the veil, but they knew that on the other side of it was the ark with its mercy seat, where God had promised to meet with His people (Ex. 25:22). The figures of cherubim embroidered on the veil represented to them the angels that stand before the throne of Deity. The veil shielded them from the consuming glory, and at the same time it permitted them to approach closely.
The cherubim must have brought vividly to their minds the cherubim stationed at the gate of Eden (see on Gen. 3:24). After Adam and Eve had sinned they could not pass the cherubim; neither could the priests in the sanctuary pass the symbolic cherubim and enter into the presence of God. This must have deeply impressed upon them the holiness of God. None but the high priest could enter the holy of holies to minister, and he but briefly one day in the year.
Throughout the year the blood of the victims was brought into the sanctuary and sprinkled “seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary” (Lev. 4:6, 17), in instances where the anointed priest or the whole congregation had sinned. Immediately behind the veil was the ark containing the tables of the law. It was with reference to the law that the blood was sprinkled, for in sinning, men had broken that law, and their transgressions demanded atonement. The sprinkling of the blood was an acknowledgement of the authority of the law and a symbolical token payment of its demand, either for perfect obedience or for the life of the disobedient. Obey and live, disobey and perish, was its dictum.
However, the sprinkled blood never reached the law, for the veil intervened. And even on the Day of Atonement, when the veil was drawn aside and the blood sprinkled in the holiest, the blood did not reach the law. The mercy seat covered the law, and there the blood rested. The mercy seat was a type of Christ. According to Rom. 3:25 God set forth Christ “to be a propitiation,” literally, a “mercy seat.” Christ is our “mercy seat.” By His death on the cross and His ministry in the courts above, Christ saves us by taking our place on the cross and pleading our case over the broken law. He stands between us and the law and saves us from its penalty, not by ignoring or abolishing it, but by paying its just demands, and thus acknowledging its authority and honoring it.
The priests entered the sanctuary with the blood of a slain animal, and by virtue of it. Christ, “by the power of an indestructiblelife” (Heb. 7:16, RSV), entered, not with “the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood … once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). We are invited to follow Him there by faith (Heb. 4:16). The new and living way He has opened for us and He Himself has trod, is the way of the cross, the way of obedience. There is no other way.
This gives point to the expression often used—and at times thoughtlessly—of going “all the way” with Christ. He has gone into the holiest of all, and is now there ministering for us. He went by way of the cross, the way of Gethsemane and Golgotha. And again He invites us to follow Him (Matt. 20:22, 23). Those who accept His invitation must be willing to go with Him by way of the cross. And it is those who thus follow Him here that will, in a better world, have the privilege of living in His presence.
The same lesson is presented to us in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup. Says Christ, “This is my body, which is broken for you. … This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:24, 25). As we take the cup, as we take the broken bread, we enter into a solemn covenant with God that we will go all the way, even though this may mean a broken body and the shedding of our blood in martyrdom.
It seems eminently fitting that God’s remnant church should be “time’s noblest offspring.” On them shines the light of all past ages; they have inherited not only the weaknesses of past generations but also the accumulated Biblical knowledge of the ages. To them has come light on Scripture such as has been given to no other people. They have light on the sanctuary; they have the more sure word of prophecy; to them have been entrusted the oracles of God. They understand the work that Christ is now doing in the courts above. They have been given the inestimable privilege of heralding to the world that the hour of God’s judgment is come, and that the end of all things is at hand. What manner of men ought they to be “in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11)!
The ark. In the ark, below the mercy seat, were the Ten Commandments, the very foundation of the throne of God. Here, at the ark, justice and mercy met; here, righteousness and peace “kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10); here God revealed Himself; here was the secret place of the Most High. The ark and the mercy seat were the center of the entire sacrificial service.
That he die not. The caution given Aaron is reminiscent of the disaster that had come upon his sons because of their disobedience (Lev. 10:1, 2).
In the cloud. God promised Moses to meet with him at the “door of the tabernacle” (Ex. 29:42), at the altar of incense before the veil (Ex. 30:36; Num. 17:4), and, as here, directly before the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22; 30:36). The presence of the “cloud” above the mercy seat in no way implies that the holy of holies was dark, for with the “cloud” was the glory of the Lord (1 Kings 8:10, 11; 2 Chron. 5:13, 14; Rev. 15:8). The Shekinah, the visible evidence that God was indeed with His people, abode above the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22; Ps. 80:1; Isa. 37:16). To man it might appear that God dwells in “darkness” (1 Kings 8:12; Ps. 18:11). But “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). He dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16). In revealing Himself to His people, God ever veiled His glory with a cloud, so that mortal beings might be aware of His presence, yet able to endure it (Ex. 16:10; 19:9; 24:16; 34:5; 40:34, 38).
3. The holy place. Throughout this chapter Moses calls the second apartment “the holy place”; the first apartment, the “tabernacle of the congregation.”
A sin offering. When sin offerings and burnt offerings were presented together, the sin offering was brought first, and demanded the nobler victim. Hence the sin offering was a bullock, the burnt offering a ram.
4. Holy garments. At first there were but few priests, and the high priest generally assisted the common priests in their work. As the numbers of the priests increased, he did so less frequently. Eventually, he assisted his brother priests only upon the Sabbath days, the new moons,and at the three annual feasts. The common priests were considered his deputies, and when they officiated, their ministry was accepted as if the high priest himself had performed it, except that they could not officiate in his stead on the Day of Atonement. He was the priest; and whenever he officiated he wore the glorious golden garments that pertained to his exalted office. These costly garments not only were adorned with gold and precious stones (Ex. 28:13-36) but were also embroidered with the colors of the sanctuary and with fine thread of pure gold (Ex. 28:4-6). Clad thus the high priest represented Christ in His divine glory as the Son of God.
On the Day of Atonement the high priest himself officiated in all parts of the service, assisted by the other priests. He conducted the daily morning and evening services arrayed in these golden garments. But for the unique ritual of the Day of Atonement the high priest wore the holy “linen garments” (Lev. 16:23) used exclusively upon this occasion. These “holy garments” resembled those of the common priests, except for the variegated embroidery of the latter. They were probably also of a finer texture than those of the common priests.
The high priest changed his garments several times during the day, and with each change washed his entire body. At the first light of dawn, according to the Talmud, he removed his personal clothing and attired himself in the golden garments; in these he conducted the regular morning service. This completed, he removed the golden garments and put on the “holy garments” for the special services of the day (v. 4). These he later exchanged for his golden garments, for the evening service (vs. 23, 24). At the conclusion of the evening service he changed once more to his personal clothing and retired from the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. Whereas the high priest clad in his golden garments represented Christ to the people, in his “holy garments” he typified Christ in His mediatorial capacity as a representative of the people before God (GC 422).
The spotless white of the garments of the high priest upon the Day of Atonement typified the perfection of character he and the people sought through the rites of that day. As the high priest “came forth to the waiting congregation in his pontifical robes; so Christ will come the second time, clothed in garments of whitest white” (AA 33). And as at the close of the special services of that day the people were “clean” from all their sins (v. 30), so when Christ appears before His people they will be “without fault before the throne of God” (Rev. 14:5; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Jude 24; Rev. 19:8).
5. Sin offering. Aaron was to take two kids of the goats of the congregation “for a sin offering.” This was unusual, for in the daily service a bullock was demanded as an offering for the people, and not a goat (ch. 4:14). But the Day of Atonement was different from all other days.
Burnt offering. The burnt offering was to be a ram, the same as for Aaron’s consecration (ch. 9:2).
6. Aaron shall offer. Aaron was not to slay the bullock at this time, but was to present it to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle for His acceptance (see v. 11). He left it standing near the altar of burnt offering, ready to offer it when the time should come.
For his house. This bullock was for himself and his family. He alone was to officiate on this solemn occasion, and must be free from every stain of sin before he could appropriately typify Christ in His mediatorial role (see John 17:19). The other priests assisted, but offered no sacrifice.
7. The two goats. Aaron was to take the two goats and present them to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle, where they stood while lots were cast for them.
8. Cast lots. This was done by placing two inscribed objects in an urn or other receptacle, and then drawing them out. Thus the selection was left to God. In early times these lots were made of wood and inscribed, one for the Lord, the other for “the scapegoat.” Later, they were made of more precious materials, even of gold. According to the Talmud, the goats were to be as nearly alike as possible. To avoid any mistake after lots were cast, a scarlet cord was placed around the horns of thescapegoat, and about the neck of the Lord’s goat. This clearly distinguished them.
The scapegoat. Some theologians think both goats are symbolic of Christ, and that they represent two phases of His atoning work. Not a few, however, believe that they represent two opposing forces, and that as the one is for the Lord, the other is for Satan. Most versions leave the Hebrew word for scapegoat, ‘azazel, untranslated, since there is no unanimity of opinion in regard to its meaning. Many modern scholars hold, with the Jews, that Azazel denotes a personal, wicked, superhuman spirit, and nearly all agree that its root meaning is, “one who removes,” “a remover,” specifically, one who removes “by a series of acts.” Others suggest that it is a combination of ‘ez, “goat,” and ‘azal, “to go away,” “to depart.”
As one goat is for the Lord, a personal Being, so the other goat must also be for a personal being; and as they are evidently antithetical, the most consistent view would be that Azazel stands in opposition to the Lord, and hence can be no other than Satan.
9. The Lord’s lot. Aaron was to offer the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, for a sin offering for the people (v. 15).
10. But the goat. The contrast between the two goats is quite complete. The Lord’s goat was slain; the scapegoat was not slain. The blood of the Lord’s goat was carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled; the blood of the scapegoat was not, for the simple reason that its blood was not shed. The fat of the sin offering was always burned on the altar. This was the case with the Lord’s goat (v. 25), but not, of course, with the scapegoat. The blood of the Lord’s goat cleansed (vs. 15, 16); the scapegoat contaminated (v. 26). The contrast between the two goats is absolute (see on vs. 20, 21).
11. Aaron shall bring the bullock. This bullock had been presented to the Lord (v. 6); now it was brought forward for sacrifice. Before Aaron was prepared to make atonement for others, he must make an atonement for himself.
12. Coals of fire. The bullock had been killed and its blood kept in a basin by one of the priests. Before entering with the blood Aaron took coals from off the altar of burnt offering and filled his censer. He took also two handfuls of incense, which he placed on the coals after entering the most holy place.
Within the vail. This was the first time Aaron officiated in the most holy place. It was also the first time he officiated in the “holy garments.” Heretofore he had worn the glorious golden garments and made atonement for others. Now he appears in the garments of humility, asking mercy for himself as well as for the people. His status has entirely changed.
According to the Talmud the high priest spent the week preceding the Day of Atonement in the room reserved for him in the priests’ quarters, engaged in prayer and meditation, and in carefully reviewing the ritual of the day. He could but wonder as to the meaning of the service in which he was about to engage. Did he begin to grasp the significance of the change of garments, and the changed status of Christ at His incarnation (see on v. 4)? Did he grasp the significance of laying aside the royal garments and passing through the veil into the presence of God? It seems unthinkable that the high priest should officiate at the most important service of the year without at least some appreciation of its true significance. To kill bullocks and rams and goats, to sprinkle their blood on the altar or in the most holy place, and not to know the meaning of these acts, would be tantamount to reducing the most solemn ceremony of the sanctuary to a pious mummery. This cannot be. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day,” said Christ; “and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). If Abraham understood, surely Aaron did also.
We may rightly conclude that Aaron thus understood in part, without, perhaps, having a complete grasp of all spiritual truth related to the plan of redemption. Some of the men of old knew more about God and salvation than do many learned men today. Of Moses, Christ said, “He wrote of me” (John 5:46). What Moses wrote was so clear that Philip and Nathanael thereby recognized the Messiah when He came (John 1:45). Paul affirmedthat he preached “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead” (Acts 26:22, 23).
13. The incense. With the inner veil drawn aside, incense alone separated Aaron from the sacred presence of God. Outside the tabernacle the prayers of the people ascended with the incense, as by faith they entered in with Aaron.
14. The blood of the bullock. Leaving the censer in the most holy place, Aaron returned to the court for the blood of the bullock. The sprinkling of its blood, first upon the mercy seat, and then seven times before it, ended his work in the holiest with its blood. He had thus made atonement “for himself, and for his household” (v. 17). Free from sin, he now became a fit representative of Christ, the sinless One, and might therefore mediate on behalf of others.
15. The goat. After the service with the bullock had been concluded, Aaron brought the Lord’s goat, which was “for the people,” and slew it. He then brought the blood within the veil and sprinkled it in the same manner as he had sprinkled the blood of the bullock, once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. Wherever the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled, there he sprinkled the blood of the goat also.
16. An atonement. Better, “thus shall he make an atonement,” or “in this manner and with this blood shall he make an atonement for the holy place.” The services of the sanctuary, from beginning to end, were essentially a work of atonement. An “atonement” for sin was made at each step in the process of dealing with it.
1.At any time during the year when a sinner presented his offering and confessed over it his sins, an “atonement” was made for him. He was “forgiven” (chs. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7). His sin was symbolically transferred to the sanctuary by the ministration of the blood of the offering and the burning of its altar portions—in some cases by the priest eating a portion of it. Nevertheless, full atonement for his sin had not been made. Though his sin was forgiven he must continue in the way of obedience. Should he fail to do so and neglect to “afflict” his soul upon the Day of Atonement (ch. 23:27-29), all of his erstwhile forgiven sins would return upon him and he must die (Eze. 18:24; 33:13). His only safety lay in enduring to “the end.” Then, and only then, could he expect to be “saved” (Matt. 24:13).
2.On the Day of Atonement—the day of final and complete atonement for all sins confessed and forgiven during the year (Lev. 16:16, 19; Heb. 10:1-3)—the blood of the Lord’s goat symbolically removed these sins from the sanctuary, making “atonement” for it also. It too was now free from sin (Lev. 16:17, 20).
On the first day of the seventh month came the blowing of trumpets, which was to call the attention of the people to the Day of Atonement, ten days later (Num. 29:1). The intervening nine days became days of heart searching, of preparation for the Day of Atonement, the day of judgment that sealed their destiny. They believed that on that day “it is sealed who shall live and who are to die” (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286, art. “Atonement, Day of”).
17. No man. During the ministration of the blood of the bullock and that of the goat in the most holy place, the veil between it and the holy place was drawn aside. For this reason any person within the holy place could see into the holiest; but this was the prerogative of the high priest alone, for he only might appear in the very presence of God. The prohibition here stated applies to vs. 12-16, which deal with the ministration of the high priest in the most holy.
The people anxiously waited to hear the bells on the high priest’s robe on the Day of Atonement. He had gone into the holiest in the white garments to sprinkle the blood and thus symbolically remove forever the record of their life’s sins. Would God accept him—and them? As he left the holiest and resumed his golden robes, and the people heard the sound of the bells, their joy and thankfulness were profound.
18. Go out unto the altar. Having purifiedthe most holy and thus completed his ministry there, Aaron was to do the same for the “tabernacle of the congregation,” that is, for the holy place (v. 16). Then he was to “go out unto the altar,” that is, the altar of burnt offering. Here he was to take some of the blood of the bullock and of the goat, and with it purify the altar from all “the uncleanness of the children of Israel” (v. 19). According to Jewish tradition the blood of the goat and the blood of the bullock were here mingled in one vessel. The fact that the two samples of blood are spoken of as “it” tends to confirm this view.
Besides putting the blood on the horns of the altar—where the blood of the sin offerings had been placed—the high priest was also to sprinkle the blood upon the altar itself, where the blood of the burnt offerings and the trespass offerings had been sprinkled, as well as the blood of the evening and the morning sacrifice. In doing this, the high priest cleansed and hallowed the altar “from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.”
We can readily understand the need of cleansing the two altars of the sanctuary on earth, for the blood of the burnt offerings and the sin offerings had been sprinkled on them (chs. 1:5, 11; 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). In the case of burnt offerings and trespass offerings the blood had been sprinkled on the altar itself (chs. 1:5, 11; 5:9); and in sin offerings it had been put on the horns (ch. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). Of the altar of incense this is said: Aaron “shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements” (Ex. 30:10). Of the altar of burnt offerings this is said: “He shall go out [of the sanctuary] unto the altar that is before the Lord …; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel” (Lev. 16:18, 19; cf. v. 20).
The temple on earth is a pattern of the temple in heaven; the cleansing on earth is merely a type of the cleansing in heaven. Of this Daniel speaks when he says that at the end of the 2300 days, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (see on Dan. 8:14). But does the heavenly sanctuary need cleansing? Has there been defilement in heaven that makes such cleansing necessary? Paul answers: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these [sacrifices of animals]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23).
20. An end of reconciling. The blood of the Lord’s goat offered on the Day of Atonement cleansed the holiest, the holy, and the altar of burnt offering, of “the uncleanness of the children of Israel” and “of their transgressions in all their sins” (vs. 16, 19). The people had previously obtained forgiveness for these same sins, when in the daily service they brought their personal sacrifices for sin. The blood was placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the penitent went away forgiven. It is stated repeatedly that “the priest shall make an atonement for him …, and it shall be forgiven him” (ch. 4:26, 31, 35). However, though the sin was forgiven, the record of the sin remained until the Day of Atonement, when it was “blotted out.” And when this had taken place there was “an end of reconciling” (see on v. 16).
21. The live goat. While the high priest made atonement with the Lord’s goat and cleansed the sanctuary with its blood, the scapegoat stood bound near the altar, having had no part in the ritual. Its part came only after the atonement with the Lord’s goat had been completed (v. 20), and “an end” had been made “of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar” (v. 20).
The high priest, having cleansed the sanctuary of sin, now went forth with these sins to the door of the tabernacle where the scapegoat waited (PP 356; GC 422). He laid his hands upon its head and confessed over it these sins, thus transferring them from the sanctuary to this goat, who bore them away into the wilderness (PP 356, 258).
In the antitype Christ will finally cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, removing the confessedand forgiven sins of His people thence, and placing them upon Satan. He will be declared guilty of all the evil he has caused them to commit, and must bear the final penalty (GC 422, 485, 658). “The sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment” (EW 178).
How fitting that the closing act of the drama of God’s dealing with sin should be a returning upon the head of Satan of all the sin and guilt that, issuing from him originally, once brought such tragedy to the lives of those now freed of sin by Christ’s atoning blood. Thus the cycle is completed, the drama ended. Only when Satan, the instigator of all sin, is finally removed can it truly be said that sin is forever blotted out of God’s universe. In this accommodated sense we may understand that the scapegoat has a part in the “atonement” (v. 10). With the righteous saved, the wicked “cut off,” and Satan no more, then, not till then, will the universe be in a state of perfect harmony as it was originally before sin entered.
Send him away. Literally, “expel him.” The word thus translated is used of divorcing a wife (Deut. 21:14; 22:19, 22; Jer. 3:8). This is a strong word. As some objectionable or repulsive beast is driven off, so the scapegoat is sent into the wilderness (Heb. midbar). It may or may not have perished there, for the Hebrews pastured flocks in the midbar, which could mean an uninhabited land where wild beasts lived. The Talmud mentions a later custom of throwing this goat over a cliff, but even then its death played no part in the sacrificial ceremony. In contrast to the Lord’s goat, the scapegoat was sent away alive; its eventual death was not in any sense sacrificial or substitutionary.
22. All their iniquities. The Israelites knew that they had sinned and come short of God’s expectation for them. But throughout this Day of Atonement they had had a visual demonstration of their complete separation from the sins they had confessed and been forgiven during the year that had now ended, and of God’s goodness in sparing their lives. They knew that they did not deserve the grace extended them. But by the shed blood of the atonement-day sacrifice the very record of their forgiven sins had been blotted from the sanctuary. Now as they watched the scapegoat depart they witnessed the last act in the drama—Satan, with all the sins he had instigated returned “upon his own head” (Ps. 7:16), going off to his doom.
23. Put off the linen garments. These garments, called also the “holy garments” (v. 4), were used only on the Day of Atonement. Aaron put them on when he went into the most holy with the incense in the morning. When the special mediatorial work was done, he removed the linen garments and put on the golden ones.
24. Wash his flesh. Aaron had come in contact with sin. This had not defiled him to the extent that he must offer a sin offering. He must bathe, however, after which he was to put on the golden garments. He then offered the usual evening burnt offering, both for himself and for the people. With this the round of ceremonies for another year began.
25. The fat. The fat of the various sin offerings earlier in the day was not burned till this time (vs. 11, 15).
26. He that let go the goat. This individual was not necessarily a priest. He might be any “fit man” (v. 21). A rope had been tied about the neck of the goat, and the man led the goat or prodded him with the staff he carried.
27. The bullock. The law required that the bodies of those beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin be burned without the camp. Paul sees in this a type of Christ, who “suffered without the gate,” and admonishes us to follow “him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:11-13).
29. A statute for ever. The Day of Atonement was the only fast day of the year, and was called “the fast” (Acts 27:9). Other fasts added later were not required or approved by God (Isa. 58:3-7; Zech. 7:3-10). In the time of Christ there were 29 fasts in addition to 2 weekly fast days.
Afflict your souls. This was more than fasting. It included soul searching, a review of one’s progress in holy living, a seeking of God, confession of sin, making amends for neglected duties, squaring accountswith God and men, thus redeeming the time.
30. That ye may be clean. This day being the Day of Atonement, it was necessary for each soul to cooperate in the work of cleansing. The priest could make atonement only as Israel confessed their sins and called upon God for help. The sins for which the high priest made atonement were the confessed sins only, the sins for which the penitent had brought offerings during the year. This day provided the annual opportunity, in type, to have sins blotted out forever; it was the accepted time.
31. A sabbath of rest. Literally “a sabbath of sabbaths,” a high day.
32. Whom he shall anoint. The priesthood and service were to continue after the death of Aaron. Another priest was then to be anointed and consecrated to the priest’s office, to put on the holy linen garments, and to conduct the service.
Leviticus 16 is one of the great chapters of the Bible. In it the plan of salvation is beautifully and impressively revealed, and some of the deep things of God are hidden within its 34 verses. The depth of meaning revealed in the ceremonies described proclaims a divine author. The mind is stretched to its utmost in the attempt to comprehend its teachings.
3. What man soever there be. When Israel left Egypt a large group, consisting principally of Egyptians, left with them. The Bible calls them the “mixed multitude,” literally, a “numerous mingled throng” (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4). An even better word might be “rabble,” which some versions use. They were a source of constant trouble, and ever the leaders in rebellion. They were the ones who instigated the demand for flesh food, which resulted in the death of thousands (Num. 11:4-6, 18-20, 31-33). Though they daily witnessed God’s miracle in sending manna from heaven, they were unthankful and unholy. Like so many who live on the charity of others, their demands constantly increased.
It is reasonable to assume that this mixed multitude would seek to continue their pagan sacrificial feasts. In Egypt were to be found some of the most degraded forms of heathenism. Among these, devil worship was probably the worst (Lev. 17:7), in connection with which he-goats, or “satyrs” (RSV), were sacrificed. These abuses had begun to creep in among the Israelites, and a reformation was needed.
Before the establishment of the sanctuary, the father of the household was also its priest, and as such offered sacrifices. When the tabernacle was erected and the priests took charge of the offerings, a great change came about in the life of Israel. The father surrendered some of his former prerogatives to the Levites, and this may have occasioned dissatisfaction.
The thing that occasioned most difficulty was the rule that all slaughtering of animals should henceforth be done at the sanctuary, and that the feasts ordinarily celebrated in connection with slaughtering should also be held there. This would in itself cause no hardship to Israel, for the sanctuary was centrally located in the wilderness, of easy access to all. But this arrangement would automatically end the convivial feasts of the mixed multitude that many Israelites, we may suspect, had enthusiastically adopted. The lengths to which the Israelites had gone in this idolatrous worship is clear from the injunction in v. 7.
Of all the sacrifices, peace offerings lent themselves most readily to abuse. In general, the others that involved blood were either given to the priest or burned, after the blood had been sprinkled and the fat removed. In none of these cases did the offerer himself receive any part of the sacrifice. But in peace offerings the Lord received the blood and the fat, and the priest, the breast and right shoulder (ch. 7:34); the remainder belonged to the offerer and his invited guests (Deut. 27:7; see on Lev. 7:15).
From the mere human viewpoint the peace offerings had another advantage. Ordinarily a sacrifice had to be perfect to be accepted (chs. 22:21; 3:1), but a peace offering presented as a freewill offering need not be perfect. It could be used even if it had “any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts” (ch. 22:23). If a man wished to make a feast, he might select an animal that was deformedbut not diseased. Henceforth he was required to bring it to the tabernacle and present to the Lord, that is, to the priest, that which God required. Some in Israel had failed to do this. Henceforth, no Israelite might participate in any celebrations except those held within the camp. These, presumably, would be conducted in harmony with the religious and social standards implicit in the law of God.
The removal of the slaying and the festivities would accomplish other desirable results. The text seems to imply that all slaughter of animals should take place under the immediate supervision of the priests. Thus even the slaying of a beast was made a semi-religious act. The command, thus understood, would emphasize the fact that God should be acknowledged in all things, that He claims a portion of all we possess, in this case the blood and the fat. It would teach Israel to honor God with their substance, and to share with the priests the part that belonged to them. Especially would the shedding of blood, and the blood itself, take on a new meaning, for the people were to treat it with the greatest respect, and might under no circumstances eat it.
These principles are as valid now as they were then. God has a claim on all we possess. Even in eating and drinking God is to be honored. Also, God would have His people separate themselves from the mixed multitude. There are dangers for both young and old in associating with the world. Attachments are easily formed, and the results are often fatal to the faith of the believer. Attendance at worldly schools is fraught with danger. Their social functions are a snare, as are also classes and graduation exercises on the Sabbath. Whoever goes “without the camp” is in need of special protection and should first have a sure call from God to do so.
9. That man shall be cut off. Verses 1-7 present legislation intended to separate the Israelites from the contaminating influence of the Egyptians (see ch. 18:3). That God considered the matter of great importance is evident from the punishment for transgression. For certain infractions of the laws concerned with physical uncleanness God ordained the rites of purification. In other matters He required a sacrifice, and in certain cases restitution. But here He prescribes the same severe penalty of excommunication that came upon the offender on the Day of Atonement if he failed to humble himself. The “stranger” was included in this regulation (v. 8). In his case at least, to be “cut off” probably meant exclusion from the privileges of fellowship with God’s people (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15).
Israel had many things to learn, and God designed that these lessons should be learned in the wilderness. Here, they were a compact group; they neither sowed nor reaped, and could devote undivided attention to the instruction given them. For instance, their daily bread came directly from heaven, ever reminding them of their dependence upon God.
The command to slaughter all animals at the door of the sanctuary was rescinded after Israel entered Canaan (see Deut. 12:15, 20, 21). All sacrificial animals were then to be brought to the tabernacle; but if the slaying was for daily food, they might kill the animal at home. Presumably by that time Israel had learned the lesson God designed to teach; furthermore, the mixed multitude was no longer a snare to them.
To offer it. Prior to Sinai, Israel had been without an appointed priesthood. The father had been the priest of his family; but now God ordered a change, and called upon all to comply with it. Men were not merely to worship, but to worship in God’s appointed manner. They were to recognize the appointed leaders. They were to abstain from prohibited things, to honor God with their substance, and to refrain from ungodly gatherings. God did not forbid social gatherings, but such as were held must be of a character consistent with sanctuary surroundings. There must be no convivial feasts.
10. Any manner of blood. God strictly forbade both Israelite and stranger (v. 12) to eat blood. That this is not merely a Jewish ordinance is clear from two facts: (1) It was first given to Noah, progenitor of the entire human race since the Flood (Gen. 9:4). (2) The very first legislation adopted by the NT church contained theprovision, “Abstain from … blood, and from things strangled” (Acts 15:29).
11. The life of the flesh. Seven times in the books of Moses the prohibition against eating blood is repeated (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23). The reason given is that blood represents life; in fact, the blood is the life. This is true in a very literal sense. The blood carries nourishment, strength, and warmth to every part of the body, and carries away all that harms and destroys. It is the indispensible medium without which life is impossible. All other parts of the body are nourished by it. If a wound occurs anywhere, blood brings to it the needed material for healing it. Science is continually learning new facts about the blood, and every one discovered increases our wonder at its amazing qualities.
Blood holds a high place in the plan of salvation. The blood of Christ is repeatedly described as the vital element in redemption. Hence we have such expressions as “purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “redemption through his blood” (Eph. 1:7); “peace through the blood” (Col. 1:20); “sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12); “the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20); “sprinkling of the blood” (1 Peter 1:2); “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood” (1 John 5:8); “not by water only, but by water and blood” (1 John 5:6); “washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). Remove the doctrine of the blood and blood atonement from the Bible and we are left without a Saviour. He was “brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” and “with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:7, 5).
It must indeed have been a hard saying for the people and the disciples when Christ announced, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:53, 54, 60). For the sincere Christian these words have deep meaning. They call to mind the words of the new covenant, the blood covenant, the symbol of which is the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:25).
An atonement for the soul. Literally, “a covering for the soul.” It is the blood that makes atonement, because of the life that is in it. Christ’s blood makes atonement because it represents His life. Christ’s death accomplished one purpose, His life another; and the two together assure us of salvation. By His death Christ paid the penalty and satisfied the claims of the law; by His life He assures us of life (see Rom. 5:10).
12. Eat blood. The intent of the rules in regard to the eating of blood was not only that Israel might abstain from the eating of literal blood. It was all of that, but it was more. It was to instill in them a high regard for that which the blood represents, life. All life comes from God and belongs to Him. It is not to be misused or destroyed.
13. Pour out the blood. This must have provided an impressive lesson for the hunter. He is out hunting and brings down a bird. Remembering God’s injunction to treat the blood with respect, he pours it out on the ground and reverently covers it. This was not, of course, for the sake of the bird. It was to teach man the value and importance of life (see Matt. 10:29).
14. It is the life. This verse is a repetition; but in the repetition something is added. Previous statements were to the effect that the life is in the blood. This verse states that it is the blood.
Christ felt and taught compassion for one’s fellow men. In fact, entrance into the heavenly kingdom depends upon interest in, and care for, the hungry, thirsty, naked, and those in prison (Matt. 25:34-40). Their life came from Him, the Author of life, and in ministering to others they would minister to Him.
15. That which died of itself. Eating the flesh of animals that died of themselves or were torn, though not prohibited, makes a man unclean. The reason for this is supposed to be that in such cases the blood was not properly drained.
3. After the doings. Having come out from the land of Egypt, Israel was to leave behind the ways of Egypt. They were on their way to Canaan, and iniquity prevailed there also. They were to shun evil, whatever its source.
4. Do my judgments. This was their only salvation. In the midst of sin and degradation, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, God wanted His people to shine forth as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15).
Some have wondered why God permitted His people to live among such conditions as prevailed in Egypt and Canaan. But though they lived in Egypt they were not to mingle with the Egyptians (see John 17:15). This is evident from the fact that He provided a separate place for them to live, the land of Goshen. Had they kept their place, had they obeyed God’s counsel, they would have remained separate from the evils that surrounded them. Instead, they mingled with the Egyptians, learned their ways, and became corrupt themselves. Their 40 years of wandering were years of education, during which God designed that they should forget the ways of Egypt and learn His ways. When the time came for them to enter the land of Canaan, the generation that departed from Egypt had all but vanished. During this interval God gave them His law from Sinai, He gave them ordinances, “which if a man do, he shall live in them”; He gave them demonstrations of His power and of His ability to provide for them under all circumstances. All this was intended to strengthen their faith. If they would but place their trust in God, all would be well.
God led Israel into the land of Canaan, knowing the temptations that awaited them there. He could have done otherwise, but in His wisdom He considered this best. Nevertheless they were not to mingle with the Canaanites nor learn their ways. The process of occupying the land of Canaan was to be a gradual one (Ex. 23:29, 30). During that process they were to have further opportunity for character development; their loyalty to God was to be tested. Had God removed all temptation immediately, there could have been no development of character.
Israel was to occupy only sufficient territory to meet their immediate needs. The plan was ideal. It would protect Israel and give them the territory needed; at the same time it would keep them from direct association with the heathen and leave a missionary field right at their door. But Israel failed to cooperate; they “entered not in” (Heb. 4:6).
6. None of you shall approach. One of the outstanding sins of antiquity was immorality, and the land of Canaan was not exempt. Marriage was held in low esteem and women were treated as cattle. This chapter gives a true picture of conditions as they were among the heathen (vs. 24-27), and against all this God warned Israel. The fact that God found it necessary to issue such a warning, with all its stark details, emphasizes the danger that confronted them and of which they must beware.
In the beginning God created one man and one woman, thus establishing ideal conditions for man’s blessing and comfort. God’s plan would preserve the home, the nation, and the chastity of both sexes. Marriage is not dishonorable; it is not sinful, a thing to be shunned, as some would have us believe. It was ordained by God Himself and is honorable (Heb. 13:4). It is a divine institution as much as is the Sabbath, and like it is to be held in high esteem. As the Sabbath demands reverence and holiness for its proper observance, so does marriage. Both can be desecrated, or both can be a blessing. Reverence for the body and its functions is the theme of this chapter, reverence for one’s own body and for the bodies of others.
21. To Molech. The obscure pagan rite described by the phrase, “pass through the fire to Molech,” is here mentioned for the first time. Other statements dealing with the same practice are found in Lev. 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10, and Jer. 32:35. The “Molech” of 1 Kings 11:7, who is describedas the god of the Ammonites, is probably the “Milcom” of vs. 5 and 33 of the same chapter, and of 2 Kings 23:13.
But who is Molech? Generations of theologians have been puzzled by this word. Some have thought that Molech (molek) stands for the Canaanite god Mekal, who is attested by inscriptions, and that the last two consonants have become inverted. Other scholars, however, have given the following interpretation: The word “Molech” (molek) has the same consonants in Hebrew as the word for “king” (melek). In ancient Hebrew, only the consonants were written, in this instance, mlk. The insertion of different vowels thus resulted in a different word. Therefore, according to these scholars, who reflect the ancient Jewish tradition, “Molech” was not the name of a deity, but the designation of any god, who could be called “king” in the same sense as God was called “king” by the Hebrews (see Ps. 5:2; 10:16; etc.). They also accepted the Jewish tradition that the ancient Hebrews reserved the title melek, “king,” for the true God, and pronounced the consonantal group of letters, mlk, when applied to Canaanite gods, with the vowels, “o” and “e,” as found in the word bosheth “shame,” thus creating the word molek. This title for a pagan god was thought to mean “shame-king” in contrast to the melek, the true King of heaven and earth. This explanation of the word “Molech” has been widely held in theological circles.
In 1935 O. Eissfeldt published his findings in regard to certain Punic inscriptions of Carthage in North Africa of the period from 400-150 b.c., in which the terms “molk of sheep” and “molk of man” are used to describe animal and human sacrifices (Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch). Since the Punic language is closely related to Hebrew, Eissfeldt explained the Hebrew word molek to mean “vow” or “pledge.” Thus the Biblical passages usually translated, “pass through the fire to Molech,” should be rendered, “as a molech,” that is, as the fulfillment of a pledge to a pagan god.
Many scholars have been inclined to accept Eissfeldt’s explanation. However, the excavation of the city of Mari, in Mesopotamia, has furnished texts in which G. Dossin found a god named Muluk, who was worshiped in the Middle-Euphrates region in the 18th century b.c. (Revue d’ Assyriologie, vol. 35, p. 178, [1938], n. 1). Also the gods of Sepharvaim, Adrammelech (attested in Mesopotamian inscriptions as Adad-milki) and Anammelech, to whom children were sacrificed by fire (2 Kings 17:31), apparently had some connection with the god Muluk, as the last half of their names reveal.
In the light of this latest evidence Molech seems to have been a particular pagan god, one to whom children were offered as burnt sacrifices, so that the traditional translation, “pass through the fire to Molech,” can be considered as correct. The name of this god, however, was later also applied as a technical term for certain animal and human sacrifices as is revealed by the Punic inscriptions of Carthage.
24. Defile not ye yourselves. The nations round about Israel were guilty of all the sins here enumerated, and were for this reason to be dispossessed. Israel therefore was to avoid similar guilt, or be cast out. The message here given is evidence of the very real danger that confronted them.
28. Spue. From qo’, “to vomit up” (see Lev. 18:25; Jonah 2:10). Israel held title to the Promised Land only on the basis of the covenant relationship. When they violated the covenant they forfeited their right to remain in Canaan. They would be “plucked from off the land” and scattered (Deut. 28:63, 64). Under the symbol of a “vine” Isaiah represents Israel “planted” in “a very fruitful hill.” But when the vine “brought forth wild grapes” God determined to lay the whole land waste (Isa. 5:1-7).
30. I am the Lord. The chapter ends as it began, with this affirmation, designed to remind them of the holiness of God and of the high standard He held before them.
2. Ye shall be holy. This is the keynote of the book of Leviticus. Throughout the book stress is ever on holiness. The reason here given for the command is that God is holy.
3. His mother, and his father. Here the order commonly followed in Scripture is reversed. Some think this an accident, the words in some way transposed. But doubtless God intended it this way. This in no way detracts from the dignity and position of the father, but it does emphasize the fact that mothers are not forgotten by God, and should not be by man.
In too many homes due honor is not given the mother. Perhaps she fails to occupy her rightful place and exert the positive, constructive influence that she should. She may lower her authority in the mind of the child by telling him that father will make him obey when he comes home, thus harming the child. A mother who habitually shirks her responsibility in this way would do well to study the situation, to seek the cause for her own failure, and then take steps to rectify matters. The commandment reads, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12).
Keep my sabbaths. The fourth and fifth commandments, here named, are the two positive commandments of the law. Both inculcate reverence and respect for authority.
I am the Lord. This statement is repeated many times in the chapter (vs. 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37).
4. Turn ye not unto idols. Verse 4 points to the first and the second commandments, particularly the second. We need not bow down to idols of wood and stone to transgress this commandment. Anything honored in the place of God or preferred before Him constitutes an idol, even if it be a matter of the imagination only.
5. A sacrifice of peace offerings. This repeats, by way of emphasis, the instruction given in ch. 7:11-21. As noted in the discussion of ch. 17:1-7, the peace offerings were more easily susceptible to abuse than were the others.
9. Gleanings of thy harvest. God’s care has ever been devoted in a special way to the poor. Often poverty results from a lack of thrift, foresight, diligence, or skill. Again, there are times when it is accidental and unavoidable. But whatever the cause, God looks with pity upon all who are in need and has commissioned His people to provide for them according to their needs. Some, unable to work, are in need of an outright gift and will use it wisely. Others are able and willing to work and should be given an opportunity to do so. Gleaning is not easy, and at times its results are meager. But it is preferable to provide most people with work to do than to present them with an outright gift. It is detrimental to one’s self-respect to receive something for nothing, except in cases of genuine need. Giving people work to do accomplishes several things, both for the giver and for the receiver. It helps the giver to develop a liberal spirit, and often places him in the position of helping God answer prayer. The receiver is also helped; it leads himto give thanks to God and to appreciate those who provide him an opportunity to help himself. It tends to create the spirit of brotherhood.
11. Ye shall not steal. Stealing and falsifying are kindred sins. The latter is often necessary to the former (see ch. 6:2). There are many ways of stealing as well as of lying. Also, there are borderline cases, and these are probably the most common ones. God desires truth in the inward parts (Ps. 51:6), and anything that savors of craftiness or hypocrisy is an abomination to Him (see Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:2).
12. Not swear by my name falsely. By implication this permits the judicial oath. It is not concerned with swearing (in court) as such, but with swearing falsely. Perjury is rightly considered a most serious crime, because it perverts justice. It is a definite breach of the third commandment and merits severe punishment (Matt. 5:33-37).
13. Not defraud thy neighbour. More exactly, “oppress thy neighbor.” Verse 11 forbids injuries by craftiness; this, by violence or superior power. Some conclude that because a thing is legal, it is therefore permissible to the Christian. A thing may be lawful, yet far from expedient (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Also, the law of the land may call lawful certain courses of conduct that God frowns upon. God does not countenance legal loopholes.
The wages. Wages are to be paid promptly, as are debts when they fall due. To withhold wages agreed upon, or the payment of just debts, or to delay these unduly, is displeasing to God and is dishonest (Deut. 24:14, 15). Strict honesty requires that a person enter into no arrangements or accept no obligations unless he has every reason to believe that he can discharge his responsibilities with respect to them. Furthermore, to allow a stipulated time for settlement of an obligation to pass without making satisfactory arrangements is dishonesty of the worst sort, and marks a man as irresponsible and untrustworthy.
14. The deaf. We may not curse the deaf because he cannot hear, nor put a stumbling block in the way of the blind because he cannot see. To do so is both dishonest and cruel. Says God, “Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way” (Deut. 27:18; cf. Job 29:15). Those who are physically handicapped deserve special consideration. But let them not trade upon their impediment.
15. Shalt thou judge. To have “respect to persons” is to “commit sin” (James 2:9). The artist rightly represents justice as a woman holding a pair of scales in balance, her eyes covered so that she will not be influenced by seeing who or what is before her.
16. A talebearer. That is, of tales likely to breed mischief, because of being either untrue or detrimental to the person concerned. The rabbis taught that there were three sins that remove a man from this world and deprive him of happiness in the next—idolatry, incest, and murder—but that slander is worse than these in that it kills three persons at once: the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener. It is more effective than a double-edged sword.
Stand against the blood of thy neighbour. Preferably, “rise up against the life of thy neighbor,” either directly or by false witness (see Dan. 8:25; 11:14; 1 Chron. 21:1). The Jews interpret it to mean that he who sees anyone in danger, as from drowning, robbery, or wild beasts, is duty bound to help; or that if a man happens to witness a crime or an injustice, he is bound to go to the rescue of the individual wronged, either by personal assistance or by bearing testimony in court.
17. Hate thy brother. It is possible to hate and despise a person, and not give any outward evidence of it. Nevertheless, hatred is sin (1 John 2:9-11). He who hates hurts himself most of all.
Rebuke thy neighbour. Christ said, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him” (Luke 17:3; see also Matt. 18:15-17). Paul says, “Them that sin rebuke before all” (1 Tim. 5:20); “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:13); “rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). The last three statements refer to the responsibility of ministers, but Christ’s advice in Matt. 18:15-17 is applicable to all. It is equally wrong to entertain hatred in the heart and to withhold rebuke. The rabbis taught that he who does not reprove an offender shares in his sin, and that it would be better for him to throw himself into a burning furnace.
18. Thou shalt not avenge. It is a human weakness to desire to “get even” with one who has done us harm, but the Bible countenances no such procedure. Says Paul, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath” (Rom. 12:19). To bear a grudge is quite useless. It does no one good, and does the bearer much harm. It sours the disposition, and gives a warped view of life.
Love thy neighbour. In this injunction are summed up the last six of the commandments (Matt. 22:40). Said Christ, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:43, 44).
Even critics admit that the statement, “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” was a most unusual pronouncement for that day and age of the world. It is unusual for any age. Selfishness prevails today, as it ever has, and there is still little love for a neighbor when one’s interests conflict with his. Usually, it is every man for himself. If we can do our neighbor some good without hurting ourselves, we may approve of it. To a great extent love for one’s neighbor is but enlightened self-interest.
19. Mingled seed. In the beginning God made different species of animals and plants. He never intended that there should be amalgamation of different kinds to the confusion of all. The rule against mixing wool and linen is not clear, nor is it explained elsewhere in the Bible. Its purpose may have been to impress upon the mind the principle as it applies to living things. The idea of keeping the different “kinds” intact as God created them is for the good of all.
20. Whosoever lieth carnally. The bondmaid in this case is betrothed to a husband but has not yet been redeemed. Therefore she is not free, but is considered the property of the one she serves.
Be scourged. Literally, “an inquiry shall be held” (RSV). The Heb. biqqoreth, thus translated, contains the idea of an investigation made with the objective of determining punishment appropriate to the crime. The KJV application of biqqoreth to the woman only is not supported by the Hebrew. It applies equally to both.
21. He shall bring. In addition to whatever punishment was deemed appropriate, the man was to present his trespass offering (see on ch. 7:1). In the first he paid his debt to society; in the second he was reconciled to God. Women were not expected to present such offerings.
23. Uncircumcised unto you. A fruit tree was not considered mature until four years of age. Until that time it was considered “uncircumcised.” That is, its fruit was neither to be eaten nor presented to the Lord. In the fourth year its fruit was to be “holy to praise the Lord withal,” and therefore presented to Him.
26. Blood. Some translate this injunction, “Ye shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it.” The blood was to be drained from any animal slaughtered for food. To this day conscientious Jews observe this rule, and wherever possible have their own slaughtering houses. Elsewhere, on certain days the priest is present at the slaughtering of animals for Jewish use, to see that this and other rules are observed. Such meat is said to be “kosher,” and marked accordingly. Christians, as a rule, pay little attention to this health ordinance, forgetful that it was only on this condition that God originally permitted the use of flesh food (Gen. 9:4). The same restriction was later enjoined upon Gentile Christians (Acts 15:20, 29).
Enchantment. This probably refers to charms and incantations, which, though not in themselves immoral or licentious, tended to superstition and idolatry. It is astonishing to find that many today are still influenced by superstitious beliefs. Even reputable newspapers carry information on “lucky” and “unlucky” days. Men profess to be able to foretell the future by the position of the stars, and to advise what should or should not be done on certain days. Fortunetellers and spirit mediums flourish by the thousands, and millions are deceived by them. Some carry charms in their pockets or on their persons, nail horseshoes over their doors; others “knock on wood” lest evil befall them. Many will not begin or perform certain tasks on a Friday. The number 13 is thought to be unlucky. Some think a black cat an evil omen on a journey, and have been known to goback and begin their journey anew. Some refuse to walk under a ladder, and others again claim to cure certain sicknesses by throwing an object behind their back on a moonless night. Anciently such things were taken more seriously than they are today, and there was danger lest Israel delve further into the magic of the nations about them.
27. Corners of thy beard. The Jews took great pride in their beards, considering them the insigne of manhood and dignity. It has been suggested that a “marred” beard marked its wearer the devotee of a heathen god. That part of the beard thus cut off may have been offered to the gods. God forbade His people to follow this heathen custom. In its context (vs. 26-28) this restriction could have meaning only as a safeguard against heathen religious customs. Its application to the modern custom of shaving off the beard is entirely unwarranted.
28. Cuttings in your flesh. This was done by various ancient peoples in connection with ceremonial rites for the dead. Even today some heathen people follow such practices. Certain New Guinea tribesmen cut off a finger joint upon the death of a member of the family.
Print any marks. This may refer to tattooing, a custom not immoral in itself, but certainly unworthy of God’s people, since it tends to mar the image of the Creator.
29. Prostitute thy daughter. This was a common practice among the nations of antiquity, especially among the poor, who often sold their daughters, and sometimes their wives, into slavery and prostitution. Women were not then generally held in high repute.
30. Keep my sabbaths. Reverence is involved in both commands here enunciated. There are some who keep the Sabbath but do not show due reverence for the sanctuary. There are others who reverence the sanctuary but not the Sabbath. True religion calls for the reverencing of both, for both are holy.
31. Familiar spirits. From ’oboth, literally, “[skin] bottles,” as in Job 32:19. This is the first use of the word in the Bible. Use of the word to designate spirit mediums seems to have been due to their unnatural, indistinct, and sonorous quality of voice, such as might have been produced by speaking into a “bottle” or other receptacle. The word translated “mutter” in Isa. 8:19 means “to murmur,” “to whisper,” “to growl.” It also means “to meditate [out loud],” as when a person addresses himself in a low voice resembling a sigh (see Ps. 143:5). The word translated “peep” is from ṣaphaph, a word that imitates the mumbling of a medium. In Isa. 29:4 ṣaphaph is rendered “whisper,” and in Isa. 38:14, “chatter.” The LXX usually renders ’oboth as eggastrimuthoi, “ventriloquists,” implying the projection of the voice to the stomach in low and grave sepulchral tones. Ventriloquism would readily lend itself to magical purposes.
’Oboth is feminine, suggesting that spirit mediums were usually women. A medium was said to “have” a “familiar spirit.” She was not possessed by a “familiar spirit,” but possessed the “spirit.” A literal rendering of 1 Sam. 28:7 would be, “a woman, the mistress of a familiar spirit.” Used as a noun the English word “familiar” means “an intimate,” “a companion.” “Familiar spirit” might therefore appropriately be “intimate spirit” or perhaps “companion spirit,” that is, one that consorted with the medium and might be summoned by its “mistress” and told what to do. The possessor, or “mistress,” of the ’ob usually stooped while speaking as a medium, and according to Isa. 29:4 spoke as if “out of the ground.” This may account for the fact that when Saul consulted the witch at Endor, she “saw gods ascending out of the earth” (1 Sam. 28:13), and explain why Saul “stooped with his face to the ground” (v. 14) to converse, as he thought, with Samuel (vs. 15-19).
The “teraphim” of the OT (see on Gen. 31:19) seem, at times at least, to have been used by spirit mediums as “props” for pretended communication with the dead, often with the aid of ventriloquism. In Zech. 10:2 it is stated that “the teraphim utter nonsense” (RSV) when inquired of. In at least one instance the word “teraphim” refers to an image so closely resembling a human being that it deceived messengers sent by Saul into thinking thatDavid himself was lying in bed (1 Sam. 19:12-17). A ventriloquist could easily simulate conversation with an image in a manner sufficiently realistic to convince superstitious minds that the spirits of the dead were speaking. It would be only natural for the devil to control the words of a spirit medium in harmony with his own purposes.
32. The hoary head. This command amplifies the fifth commandment. Reverence and respect are fundamental virtues. Irreverence, disrespect, and lack of serious thought have ever been besetting sins. This is the day of youth. They are indeed the hope of the world and of the church. But this does not imply setting aside men of age and experience, nor disregard for their counsel.
Fear thy God. This command is always present truth. The church in our day is admonished, “Fear God, and give glory to him” (Rev. 14:7).
33. A stranger. Strangers of old were generally looked upon with suspicion. Why had the stranger left home? Had he committed some crime? Was he a fugitive from justice? Was he a runaway slave? Naturally questions arose in a day when few ventured far from their ancestral hills and valleys. The stranger was on the defensive, but God’s people were not to vex him.
34. As one born among you. It was not enough that the stranger be left alone, neither annoyed nor molested. They were to treat him with the same consideration they manifested toward one another. Christ enunciated this same standard while on earth. In fact, He quoted directly from this chapter of Leviticus when He said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39; Lev. 19:18). Lest some might conclude that by “neighbor” Christ meant a Jew, He spoke the parable of the good Samaritan. Any man in need, be he Jew or Samaritan, friend or stranger, is our neighbor (Luke 10:30-37).
Ye were strangers. It is well for us to remember that there may have been times in the past when we were among strangers and needed a helping hand or an encouraging word. This should make us more kind to those who need our help and encouragement.
35. Do no unrighteousness. God commands strict honesty in measures of length, weight, and quantity. In all exchanges, strict justice is to be observed. Says Christ, “With the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again” (Luke 6:38).
1. The Lord spake. Most of the offenses mentioned in this chaper have been discussed in chs. 18 and 19. There the appeal to the people was purely on spiritualgrounds, an appeal to their sense of right. Here, the offenses are considered as crimes against the state, and hence punishable. The punishment is generally death.
2. Unto Molech. This was not merely a dedication of the child to Molech, but was an actual sacrifice of the children as a burnt offering (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35; see Jer. 7:31; 19:5; Eze. 16:21; 23:37). For a discussion of the word “Molech” see on ch. 18:21.
5. Cut him off. Literally, “cut down,” “cut asunder,” “consumed,” “destroyed.” God decreed that those who sacrificed their children to Molech should be executed, usually by stoning. If the people did not take action, but condoned the crime, God would take matters into His own hand and “cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him.” In most instances it is not clear as to the means by which sinners were “cut off” (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15). Here it can mean only death.
6. Familiar spirits. Those who sought in any way to contact the spirits or communicate with the dead were punished likewise (v. 27). As the death penalty is not mentioned in v. 6, it is supposed that in some cases it was left to the decision of the judges, according to the gravity of the offense. According to v. 27, the ordinary penalty was death. On the meaning of the term see on ch. 19:31.
7. Be ye holy. This, as has been remarked before, is the dominant note of Leviticus, and one which God wished His people ever to have in mind. The reason given is simply: “I am the Lord your God.”
8. Keep my statutes. Verse 7 inculcates sanctification. Immediately follows the injunction, “Keep my statutes”; and then the words, “I am the Lord which sanctify you.” Sanctification and the keeping of God’s statutes are here combined—as they indeed must be in real life. The claim that sanctification can be gained without obedience to the will of God is a spurious claim.
9. Curseth his father. We are not informed what was involved in this cursing that demanded the death penalty. The fact that this is not defined implies that disrespect of any kind is included.
Death seems a severe penalty for merely cursing anyone. What great responsibility this placed on the parents, so to bring up a child that he would have respect for authority. We are reminded of this when we see parents meekly submit to abuse by a child who in a tantrum not only refuses to obey, but screams, kicks, rebels, and even hits father or mother. Too late, such parents may regret that they did not take the boy in hand in time, but permitted him to pass beyond restraint. The greatest regret will come with the realization that had they acted wisely and promptly, the boy might have been saved in the kingdom.
10. Adultery. Verses 10-21 do not make pleasant reading. Nor were they intended to. The things mentioned are shameful things, wicked things. Hence the judgment is generally death.
20. Die childless. This penalty may not seem drastic today; but in ancient times it meant much. To die childless was to have no part in the hope of Israel, to be, practically, outside the covenant.
23. The manners of the nation. God desired His people to be separate from those around them, in manner, dress, morality—even in their eating. God’s ideal for His people is complete separation from the world.
26. Severed. Literally, “separated.” The same Hebrew word appears in Gen. 1:4, 6, 7, 14; Ex. 26:33; Isa. 59:2; etc. It is translated in Lev. 20:24 as “separated,” and in v. 25 as “put difference.” Israel was to be distinct from all other nations, not only in their form of worship, but in their ideals, objectives, social and recreational life, diet, and dress. God “severed” His people from all others, not simply to make them different from all others, but that they might represent in their every habit of life His own perfection of character. Thus even the heathen nations would come to recognize the superiority of the laws of God (Deut. 4:6-9).
1. Unto the priests. The message of ch. 21 is for the priests and their families. They must keep from defilement of every kind. The people were permitted to do certain things that were forbidden to the priests. In turn, the common priests were allowed more liberties than the high priest. There was a graduated scale of conduct that became more strict according to the person’s rank. The rules that applied to the head of the household applied in some instances to their families also, with the effect thatthe misconduct of a son or a daughter might reflect on the father.
2. But for his kin. A dead body, whether of saint or sinner, was considered unclean, and a priest touching it was rendered unclean and hence could not officiate in the sanctuary. There were exceptions in case of those of near kin, such as father or mother, son or daughter, brother or sister.
4. A chief man. Literally, a “husband” (Ex. 21:22), or a married man (Ex. 21:3). It is probably used here in the latter sense, meaning that he may not defile himself for his in-laws. The priest might not follow the usual customs of mourning for the dead, but was ever to maintain the dignity of the priestly office.
6. They shall be holy. Though God does not have two standards of conduct for His people, He does expect His ministers to set an example to the church in holy living. God’s service ever requires of a man the very best. There are three things stressed in this chapter that stand out as qualifications for the priesthood:
1.Physical condition. God demanded that He be served only by men in good physical condition, without physical defects, and in possession of all the natural powers of the body. Physical perfection was representative of perfection of character, toward which all should strive.
2.Holy men. Their lives must be blameless, their families without reproach. A church may rightly be judged by the lives of its members. Another, and perhaps more exacting, test is the standard of holiness produced in the minister’s life.
3.Dedicated men. The priests of old were not permitted to let anything interfere with their service to God. The high priest must not mourn over the loss of a dear one, nor even attend to the funeral details of one dear to him (see vs. 10, 11). Nothing of any kind must come in to hinder the work of God.
9. The daughter of any priest. If a young woman of the people sin, her punishment was to be according to the gravity of the offense. But if the daughter of a priest was immoral, there was but one law—death by fire.
10. The high priest. Although the rules were strict for a priest, they were still more strict for a high priest. He alone of all the priests had been anointed upon the head with oil, he alone was consecrated to put on the golden garments. He must not uncover his head, since this necessitated removing the golden plate on which was the inscription “Holiness to the Lord.” He must not rend his garments, as was the custom when one was in great sorrow. He must not go near a dead body, not even that of his father or mother. Christ’s words to a would-be disciple seem to reflect this ideal (Matt. 8:22). Should the high priest do so, he would become unclean and so incapacitate himself for performing the duties of his sacred office.
12. Go out of the sanctuary. The common priests each served only for a short time every year; the high priest was on continuous duty. He must be available at all times, hence could not go on a journey. One priest could officiate for another in case of emergency, but no one could officiate for the high priest, though in later times he did have a substitute.
13. A wife in her virginity. The high priest was to marry a virgin. He might not marry a widow, as could the common priest, nor, of course, one of blemished reputation.
15. Profane his seed. The children of any such union as mentioned in v. 14 would be disqualified to succeed their father in office, as he himself would be disqualified by violating the law prohibiting such unions. These rules were given to preserve the priesthood as a holy order. The priests must be clean in all respects, that they might deserve the respect of the people.
17. Any blemish. As the sacrifices offered were to be perfect and without blemish, so also must be the priests who officiated at the altar. Those who had blemishes might serve in minor capacities, but must never ascend the altar (v. 21). They might be caretakers of the priests’ wardrobe. They might gather and examine the wood to be used, but not build the fire or remove the ashes. They might inspect lepers, be doorkeepers, and keep the court in order. But they could not perform any strictly priestly function (v. 23). They were not deprived of their regular priestly income, and might eat of the offerings given to the priests, both of the holy and the most holy (v. 22).The sin, trespass, and meat offerings were “most holy,” as was also the shewbread (ch. 2:3, 10; 6:17, 25, 29; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17). The heave offering and the wave offering, the first fruits, the firstlings, and things devoted were holy.
18. A flat nose. That is, “a mutilated face” (RSV).
Any thing superfluous. Literally, “anything stretched out,” “having any member too long.” Everything connected with the worship of God must be perfect.
2. Separate themselves. All that served at the tabernacle must be strictly clean, ceremonially and otherwise. If any priest had become unclean, he must carefully avoid touching or even coming near any of the holy things. These included everything pertaining to the service of the sanctuary, such as the altars, with all their utensils, and also the offerings the people brought to the priests. If any did so, he was cut off from the presence of the Lord, that is, from the service of the tabernacle.
4. A leper. Most of the defilements that might come to a priest would be only temporary in nature, and exclusion from the sanctuary would last only till evening. Those, however, who contracted leprosy or had a running sore were excluded until declared clean again, however long the time might be. During the time of their separation they were supported as were the other priests, but might not eat of things offered, since that would involve the bearing of sin.
5. Any creeping thing. God ordained that all who served at the sanctuary should be absolutely clean. If a priest should as much as touch a creeping thing or another person who was not clean, he must wash, and might not serve till the next day.
7. When the sun is down. Sunset ended the day. At that time the doors of the tabernacle were shut, and there were no more services that day. Hence when a priest was unclean until evening, he could not officiate until the day following.
9. Lest they bear sin. At all times the priests must refrain from eating anything unclean, or that had been torn, or that had died of itself. Whoever did so, knowingly, would “die therefore.”
10. The holy thing. That is, the daily food of the priest and his family, most of which came from the offerings of the people. Hebrew bondservants and their families were reckoned as belonging to the family and could therefore eat of the “holy things.” A married daughter living with her husband was counted as belonging to another family, and hence might not eat of them.
14. Unwittingly. If a man who was not entitled to eat of the holy things did so unwittingly, he thereby trespassed in “the holy things of the Lord,” and came under the rule of ch. 5:15, 16. A priest must ever be on his guard to avoid infractions of this regulation. A married daughter, for instance, might be visiting her parents’ home and be given a portion of food to take home. If it was “holy” she had no right to it. A visitor might be invited to eat with the priest’s family. It might beinconvenient to prepare a separate meal for the visitor only, who must therefore choose from the common meal that which he was permitted to eat. Should he or the host make a mistake, it would constitute a transgression.
18. The strangers. That is, unnaturalized persons residing among the Hebrews. A stranger might bring an offering, but not approach the altar as could an Israelite. The priest received the sacrifice and offered it for him. Such an offering would of necessity be a freewill offering, to which the rule of ch. 1:3 would, of course, apply.
21. Peace offerings. A promise to present an animal to the Lord constituted a vow. An inferior animal was unacceptable; it must be perfect in every respect. This applied to both the Israelite and the stranger.
23. A freewill offering. If, however, his was a freewill offering, and not a vow, the offerer might bring an animal even if it had something “superfluous or lacking in his parts.” Such gifts were often used for the poor. A horn might be broken, or there might be a defect in its leg, or a scar on its skin. None of these rendered it unfit for food.
24. That which is bruised. This refers to accidentally injured animals. It seems that the deliberate mutilation of animals was forbidden.
25. Bread of your God. That is, the sacrifices brought by the people upon which the priests depended for their living.
27. Seven days under the dam. That is, with its mother. A newborn animal was not immediately acceptable as an offering (see on Ex. 22:30). There was no upper age limit for offerings, except as specifically stated. Gideon offered a bullock seven years old (Judges 6:25).
28. It and her young. We are not told why a cow and her young might not be killed the same day. This rule seems to be of the same nature as that which forbade taking from the bird’s nest both mother and young (Deut. 22:6). Perhaps these precepts were designed to teach Israel kindness and mercy, even toward dumb animals. It may also have been that heathen religious rites called for such practices. This fact in itself could provide adequate explanation for the prohibition here given (see on Ex. 23:19).
The principle of kindness toward animals holds good today. Let us not kill needlessly, but rather feel that tender, solicitous care that the Creator Himself has for the creatures of field and forest (Matt. 10:29). Even little children resent harm to their pets; let us not lose childhood’s sensitive appreciation for kindness. Cruelty of all kinds should prove revolting to us. Let physicians be on guard lest they become hardened to the sufferings of others. Let ministers not forget the frailties of humanity and the need of sympathy more than of rebuke.
29. A sacrifice of thanksgiving. Verses 29 and 30 repeat the instruction of ch. 7:15.
2. Feasts of the Lord. The annual “set feasts” (Num. 29:39) are six in number: (1) the Passover (Num. 28:16); (2) the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:17); (3) the “feast of harvest,” the “feast of weeks” (first fruits), or Pentecost (Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Num. 28:26; Acts 2:1); (4) the Feast of Trumpets (Num. 29:1); (5) the Day of Atonement (Num. 29:7); (6) the “feast of ingathering,” the “feast of tabernacles” (Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:34; Num. 29:12).
With these six feasts are seven days of “holy convocation”; the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:18, 25); the day of first fruits (Num. 28:26); the Feast of Trumpets (Num. 29:1); the Day of Atonement (Num. 29:7); the first and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:35, 36).
The word translated “feast” in this chapter is from one or the other of two Hebrew words: (1) Mo‘ed, an appointed meeting (used, for example, in Lev. 23:2, 4, 37; Num. 29:39). (2) Chag, a festival (used, for example, in Lev. 23:6, 34, 39, 41; Num. 28:17; 29:12). The two words are sometimes used interchangeably, though mo‘ed stresses the time of the feast, “set feasts” (Num. 29:39); chag, the character of the feast. Chag is derived from a verb that has, as one of its possible meanings, “to make a pilgrimage,” “to take a journey to an object of reverence.” The related Arabic word haj describes the sacred Moslem pilgrimage to Mecca. In the listing of the annual “set feasts,” chag, significantly, is used only of three, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of First Fruits, and the Feast of Tabernacles. “Three times shalt thou keep a feast [chag] unto me in the year” (Ex. 23:14). To celebrate these three feasts all males were to “appear before the Lord in the place which he shall choose” (Deut. 16:16). They were to “make a pilgrimage.”
There is therefore no contradiction between the statement in Exodus, that the Israelites were to “keep a feast” “three times” “in the year” (Ex. 23:14), and the listing, in Leviticus, of six annual feasts (see also Num. 28, 29). Each of these six feasts is described as a mo‘ed, but three of them are also designated chag. In other words, there were six mo‘ed but only three chag. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes these three as “pilgrimage festivals.”
Though the Passover may be properly listed as a separate “appointed meeting,” a mo‘ed, it may also be considered a part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover lamb was slain on the 14th of the first month and eaten that night, in the beginning of the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passoverand the Feast of Unleavened Bread were really two parts of one whole, and in some instances were thus considered (see Exe. 45:21). In view of this we might speak of five, rather than six, annual feasts.
3. Sabbath of rest. Literally “a sabbath of sabbath observance.” Our translation fails to convey the full force of the original Hebrew, which is variously translated a “sabbath of deep rest,” “a sabbath of complete rest,” “a perfect sabbath,” “a sabbath of solemn rest” (RSV).
The Sabbath is different from all the other feasts and holy convocations (see vs. 37, 38) in that it originated at creation (Gen. 2:1-3), whereas the annual feasts and “sabbaths” had their origin with the Jewish nation. The seventh-day Sabbath “was made for man” (Mark 2:27), and hence is of obligation for all men forever; the annual feasts were made for the Jews and ceased to be of obligation when type met Antitype at the death of Christ (Col. 2:16, 17). The seventh-day Sabbath is incorporated in the law of God, the Ten Commandments, His constitution for this world. Because it was made before sin entered, it will remain after sin is no more (Isa. 66:22, 23). On the other hand, the annual Jewish feasts were of only temporal, local, ceremonial application, fitted to conditions in Palestine, and could not be made of worldwide application.
Thus the Feast of First Fruits (of winter crops), celebrated in late spring, in May, could not be observed in the southern hemisphere till six months later. Similarly, it would not be possible for people in all lands to observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn. The Jews have found that it is not even possible for them to observe the Day of Atonement as ordered by God, except in connection with the Temple. The Passover could appropriately be observed in anticipation of a coming Redeemer, but not after His coming. All these feasts served their purpose, adapted as they were to the needs of the Jews while they lived in Palestine, prior to the coming of Messiah. They have ceased, but the seventh-day Sabbath remains.
To make sure that the Sabbath should not be considered a Jewish institution, and hence cease with the Jewish nation, Christ emphatically declared, “The sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27). He added, “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (v. 28). It belongs to Him; He is “Lord” of it. Let none tamper with it, for they have no right to do so. It is “my holy day,” says God (Isa. 58:13).
The sabbath of the Lord. This is the equivalent of, “it is the Lord’s sabbath,” and indicates proprietorship. If God should have spoken of the first day of the week as “my holy day,” or “the sabbath of the Lord,” none today would be uncertain as to what He meant. Instead, He uses these very expressions in regard to the seventh day. It is His day.
5. The Lord’s passover. The Passover was not instituted until the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 12:14, 27). It commemorated the saving power of God exercised in their behalf on that historic occasion, and was therefore for them “the Lord’s passover.” In striking contrast, “the sabbath of the Lord” became such when, at the close of creation week, God Himself rested upon that day and set it apart for the use and benefit of all mankind (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Mark 2:27, 28). All men owe their very existence to the creative power of God and are therefore under obligation to Him to keep ever holy His appointed day of rest.
As stated, the Passover was instituted in memory of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage. On the 10th day of the first month a lamb was selected for each household “according to the number of the souls,” or if the household was small, two or more households could unite for one sacrifice. The lamb was kept until the 14th day, when it was killed in the late afternoon, and its blood sprinkled on the doorposts (see on Ex. 12:1-10). The same night the flesh was eaten, not boiled as usual, but roasted. Only unleavened bread could be used, with bitter herbs (v. 8). In later years there were modifications in this ritual, but it remained essentially the same.
The Passover sacrifice is distinguished by being called “my sacrifice” (Ex. 23:18; 34:25). The Passover commemorated Israel’s departure from Egypt. But it also looked forward to “Christ our Passover,” who was to be “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).In various respects the Passover fitly foreshadowed the crucifixion. At the crucifixion not a bone of Christ’s body was broken (John 19:36); not a bone of the Passover lamb might be broken (Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12). The Passover lamb was slain the 14th day of Abib and eaten the same night (Ex. 12:6-10); Christ died at Passover time (John 19:14). The sprinkling of the blood meant a “passing over” in mercy, a deliverance from death (Ex. 12:13); so through Christ’s blood there has been a passing over of sins committed and confessed (Rom. 3:25). The Passover sacrifice was a lamb (Ex. 12:3); so Christ was “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). The lamb was to be without blemish (Ex. 12:5); Christ was without blemish (1 Peter 1:19). Its flesh was to be eaten (Ex. 12:7); likewise we must partake of His flesh (John 6:51).
The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are replete with gospel truth. In the slain lamb provision was made for saving the first-born. But the death of the lamb was not enough to assure salvation; the blood must be struck on the doorpost.
The Passover is symbolic of Christ’s death. He is our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7). On the cross He made provision for everyone to be saved. But the cross in and of itself saves no one. It only made salvation available (see John 1:12). The death of the lamb provided the means of salvation; the application of the blood made efficacious the means provided. Both were necessary. Thus for the Christian the atonement on the cross, though essential and sufficient for all, does not save any individual until there has been an individual application of the blood. The sprinkling of the blood was fully as important as the death of the lamb. Yet even this was not enough; the flesh must be eaten, and it must be eaten under the specified conditions (Ex. 12:11). And this was not enough; all leaven must be purged away. Carelessness in the least particular would be fraught with tragic results (Ex. 12:13, 19, 23).
It is one thing to be saved from death. It is another to have the means of sustaining life. This was provided positively by eating the lamb; negatively, by abstaining from leaven. Christ is “the living bread which came down from heaven,” of which a man must eat if he would “live for ever” (John 6:51). The lamb was to be roasted entire (Ex. 12:9). For each lamb there was to be a sufficient number of people so that all the flesh would be eaten (Ex. 12:4). Nothing was to be carried out of the house, and nothing left until morning. Whatever remained of those parts that could not be eaten was to be burned (Ex. 12:10, 46). Similarly, the Christian must assimilate completely the life of the One represented by the lamb. This means the entire identification of the believer with Christ. It means accepting fully the life and character of Jesus.
The NT counterpart of the Passover is found in the Lord’s Supper, the communion service. After Christ had come, there could be no more virtue in slaying the Passover lamb, which prefigured His coming. But there would be virtue in commemorating the sacrifice of Calvary and its sustaining power. For this reason our Lord instituted the symbolic meal of communion, the purpose of which is to remind us of the provision made for our salvation upon the cross. Like its prototype, it points both backward and forward—we are to remember Calvary “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26).
6. The feast of unleavened bread. Closely connected with the Passover, yet distinct from it, was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed. For practical purposes the two feasts were considered as one, and the names are often used interchangeably. But in purpose they were somewhat different. The Passover stood for deliverance (Ex. 12:13); the unleavened bread was reminiscent of the haste in which Israel left Egypt (Ex. 12:33, 39; Deut. 16:3). God was explicit as to the manner in which the Feast of Unleavened Bread should be celebrated (Ex. 12:15). Of it Paul later said, “Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8).
Leaven was to be entirely excluded. It represents malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:8), and false doctrine, as exemplified in the teachings of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians (Matt. 16:6, 12; Mark 8:15). The leaven of the Pharisees isgreed and injustice (Matt. 23:14), a dog-in-the-manger spirit (v. 13), false zeal (v. 15), wrong estimates of spiritual values (vs. 16-22), omission of justice, mercy, and faith (v. 23), vain punctiliousness (v. 24), hypocrisy (vs. 25-28), intolerance (vs. 29-33), and cruelty (vs. 34-36). The leaven of the Sadducees is skepticism (Matt. 22:23) and a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures and of the power of God (v. 29). The leaven of the Herodians is flattery, worldly-mindedness, and hypocrisy (vs. 16-21), and plotting evil against God’s representatives (Mark 3:6).
7. No servile work. The first and last days of the feast were days of holy convocation on which no “laborious work” (RSV) might be done. Each day two bullocks were offered, one ram, and seven lambs for a burnt offering, with their accompanying cereal offerings, and one goat for a sin offering (Num. 28:19-24).
10. A sheaf of the firstfruits. The presentation of the first fruits was a part of the celebration of the days of unleavened bread. The presentation took place on the “morrow after the sabbath,” the 16th of Abib (ch. 23:11). This day was neither a “holy convocation” nor a “sabbath.” But an important work was nevertheless done on that day. On the 14th day of Abib a certain portion of a field of barley was marked off to be cut down in preparation for the presentation on the 16th. Three select men cut the barley in the presence of witnesses, having already tied the sheaves together before cutting them. After being cut the sheaves were all tied together into one large sheaf and presented before the Lord as a “sheaf of the firstfruits.” In addition, a perfect male lamb, a cereal offering mingled with oil, and a drink offering were presented to God (vs. 12, 13). Not until this was done could Israel make use of the fruits of the field for themselves. This ceremony pointed to “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:23).
14. A statute for ever. A summary of the Passover ritual lends emphasis to the great central truths of Christianity. The Passover is symbolic of the death of Christ. As the Passover lamb died, so Christ died. The blood of the lamb delivered Israel of old from the destroying angel. The blood of Christ now reconciles all who come to Him in faith.
The Passover is also symbolic of the resurrection, as typified in the wave sheaf. The lamb died on the evening of the 14th day of Abib. On the 16th, the “morrow after the sabbath,” the first fruits, previously cut, were presented before the Lord. Christ died Friday afternoon and rested in the grave over the Sabbath (Luke 23:53-56). On the morrow after the Sabbath (Luke 24:1) Christ “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20) was raised from the grave, and presented Himself before His heavenly Father (John 20:17).
The “morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) was neither “an holy convocation” nor a “sabbath,” in type or antitype, yet an important work was done on that day. When Christ arose on the first day of the week He ascended to the Father to hear the words of God’s acceptance of His sacrifice.
The Passover promoted fellowship. The eating of the Passover lamb brought families and neighbors together. It was a communal meal typifying deliverance, and deliverance called for consecration. All sin must be put aside. No leaven was to remain in the house. Every corner must be examined for traces of it. Nothing less than complete “holiness to the Lord” would be accepted (see Ps. 29:2; 96:9). The Passover was a most solemn occasion.
All this, and more, the Passover meant to Israel of old. The Lord’s Supper should mean no less to us today. There is grave danger that we forget, or fail to appreciate, the wonderful blessings God has in store for those who worthily partake of the ordinances of the Lord’s house. We would do well to study the Passover as given to Israel, that we may appreciate the more Him who is our real Passover Lamb, and whose death is commemorated in the communion service.
16. Fifty days. This feast came on the 50th day after the presentation of the wave sheaf on the 16th of Abib, that is, on the 6th day of the third month—late in May or early in June. It was known as the “feastof weeks,” or “firstfruits” (Ex. 34:22). In NT times it was known as “Pentecost,” from a Greek word meaning “fifty.”
As the wave sheaf was presented at the beginning of the harvest, before any of the new yield might be used, so Pentecost marked the end of the harvest season, though some grain might remain to be harvested in the higher mountains. It was the joyous acknowledgment of Israel’s dependence upon God as the giver of all good gifts. At this time it was not a sheaf that was presented, but two wave loaves of fine flour, baked with leaven, together with seven lambs, a bullock, and two rams (Lev. 23:17, 18). These were accompanied by a goat for a sin offering and two lambs for a peace offering (v. 19).
In the Passover celebration no leaven was to be eaten or to be found in the homes of the people. At Pentecost two loaves were to be presented, “baken with leaven” (v. 17). The wave sheaf is Christ “the firstfruits” (see on v. 14). He was without sin.
Pentecost symbolizes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As the wave loaves were offered 50 days, inclusive, after the wave sheaf, so there were 50 days, inclusive, between the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Forty of these days Christ spent on earth instructing and helping His disciples (Acts 1:3). Then He ascended, and for 10 days the 11 disciples continued in prayer and supplication, until “the day of Pentecost was fully come.” With Pentecost came the fullness of the Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:4). At Pentecost the labors of the disciples were added to those of Christ, and the result was glorious for the kingdom of heaven.
These ten days were important ones for the church on earth. They were also important in heaven. When Christ “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” (Eph. 4:8). Those who had been raised at Christ’s death and had come “out of the graves after his resurrection” ascended with Him to heaven, and were then presented before the Father a kind of first fruits of the resurrection (Matt. 27:52, 53).
22. The poor. This verse repeats the instruction of ch. 19:9, 10. It seems fitting that special attention should be called to the poor and the stranger at a time when there was plenty for all—harvesttime.
24. Blowing the trumpets. On the first day of the seventh month was a sabbath; “an holy convocation” was to be held. On that day the trumpets were blown, for the Day of Atonement was near at hand, and the first nine days of the month were to be days of preparation for it. The first day of the seventh month of the religious calendar was new year’s day, the first day of the civil calendar year.
27. A day of atonement. This day was the only commanded fast (see Acts 27:9). It was a high day in Israel, and is called a “sabbath of rest” (Lev. 23:32). It was the only day, aside from the weekly Sabbath, on which all work was forbidden.
29. Be cut off. The Day of Atonement was also a day of judgment, for whoever did not “afflict” his “soul” that day was “cut off” (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15). Moreover, if a man worked on that day God would destroy him. For a more complete discussion of the observance of the day, see on Lev. 16.
34. The feast of tabernacles. This was the last feast of the religious year and usually came during the present month of October, after the autumn harvest was over and the fruit had been gathered in. It was a joyous occasion for all. The Day of Atonement was past; all misunderstandings had been cleared up, all sins confessed and put aside. The Israelites were happy, and their happiness found expression in the Feast of Tabernacles.
40. Branches. These were used to make booths, in which the Israelites were to live during the feast. On the Day of Atonement the people were to afflict their souls. At the Feast of Tabernacles they were to “rejoice.” It was altogether the happiest occasion of the year, when friends and neighbors renewed fellowship and dwelt together in love and harmony. In this respect it was prophetic of the time when the great ingathering of God’s people shall take place, and “many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11).
The Feast of Tabernacles was commemorative of the time when Israel lived in tentsin the wilderness during their 40 years of wandering (see Deut. 16:12-15).
It is well to remember how God has led us in times past. It is well to bring to mind His providences, for we are sometimes prone to complain at the way He leads us today. Is it not well to think of the many blessings God has bestowed upon us, and the wonderful way He has guided our lives? To do so would make us more appreciative and thankful. And thankfulness is a vital part of religion.
2. Pure oil olive. The instruction here given in regard to oil for the lamps of the candlestick is the same as that recorded in Ex. 27:20, 21. The oil was furnished by the congregation, as was also the flour for the shewbread and the loaves of the Feast of Weeks. Aaron was responsible for the lamps, and at first he trimmed them himself (Ex. 30:8), but later this became the work of the priests.
Ordinary oil was pressed out in an oil press, but oil for the sanctuary lamps was beaten out. The berries were carefully washed, and all impurities, leaves, and twigs removed. Then they were beaten and bruised, and the oil was allowed to seep out of itself. This produced less oil than the other method, but the result was a superior product.
Authorities do not agree as to whether the lamps burned both day and night. Verse 3 says that Aaron shall “order it from the evening unto the morning before the Lord continually,” whereas v. 2 states that the lamps are to burn continually. According to Ex. 30:8, Aaron lighted the lamps in the evening, but 1 Sam. 3:3 speaks of “the lamp of God” going out. In standard practice, however, “the lamps were never all extinguished at one time, but shed their light by day and by night” (PP 348). The various statements, while seeming to be contradictory, are thus actually harmonious. It is probable that the “lamp of God” (1 Sam. 3:3) was not the candlestick. Or it may have been that Eli was not as careful as he might have been in following the prescribed ritual. As there must always be a sacrifice on the altar and shewbread on the table, so also there must always be a lamp burning. Even in the daytime the natural light would be insufficient for the priests to perform the daily ritual, in a tent heavily covered and without windows.
5. Twelve cakes. Specific instructions are now given for the preparation and use of the shewbread, mentioned three times previously (Ex. 25:30; 35:13; 39:36). Each cake was made of 4 qt. (4.41 l.) of fine flour. Nothing is said as to whether or not the bread was to be leavened, but the fact that it was placed before the Lord in the first apartment would seem to imply that leaven was not used. Being, as it were, a continuous “meat offering” (Num. 4:7), it would come under the regulations for meat offerings, and must therefore have been made without leaven (Lev. 2:4, 11). Josephus specifically states that leaven was not used (Antiquities iii 6.6). In later times the preparation and arrangement of the cakes were considered the work of the Levites (1 Chron. 9:32).
6. Two rows. That is, piles. The word means an orderly arrangement of any kind (see Judges 6:26, margin). The size of the loaves would require stacking rather than arrangement in “rows.”
7. Frankincense. This was placed in two golden cups, and when the bread was removed the incense was burned on coals of fire as an offering to the Lord.
8. Every sabbath. The shewbread was removed weekly upon the Sabbath day by four priests, according to the Talmud, two to take out the loaves and two to take out the incense cups. As they were ready to remove the loaves and the incense cups, four other priests, of the new course for the coming week, entered, carrying the new bread and the new incense cups. Those who brought in the new bread stood at the north side, facing south; those who took away the old bread stood at the south side, facing north. As the priest on one side removed the loaves, the priest opposite him put the new on. In doing this they were careful not to take away the old till the new was ready to be put in place. Thus, bread was always on the table. The old bread was then eaten by the priests as theirportion, within the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. It was this bread that Abimelech gave to David and his men (1 Sam. 21:4-6; Matt. 12:3, 4).
This is often called the “bread of the Presence,” and typified Christ, the true Bread of Life (see John 6:51). The bread testified also to Israel’s constant dependence on God for all their needs, both spiritual and temporal (see Matt. 6:31-34). The table was always set, and its supply of bread renewed week by week. As the flame in the lamps on the candlestick rose heavenward, so the incense on the table of shewbread ascended as a sweet savor to the Giver of all good things.
It is but a short step from the table of the Lord in the sanctuary to the table of the Lord in the NT. The priests partook of the bread representative of Him who came down from heaven; we eat of the bread Christ says is His body (1 Cor. 11:24).
10. The son of an Israelitish woman. The fact that the young man was the son of an Egyptian, and that he “went out among the children of Israel,” indicates that he was not allowed within the camp proper, but entered nevertheless. Here a quarrel arose, and the young man blasphemed the name of the Lord. Since he did not belong in the camp but was counted a stranger, he was put in ward until the will of the Lord could be ascertained, that is, until they could learn how the laws of Israel applied to one who was at least in part a stranger. When he entered the camp in the first place, it had been his purpose to pitch his tent there (PP 407).
11. Blasphemed. Instead of repenting, he proved to be perversely impenitent.
22. One manner of law. The incident mentioned in vs. 10-14 gave occasion for a clarification of certain civil laws, particularly as they applied to “the stranger” (see Ex. 21:12, 24, 33). God forgives sin whatever it be, but civil crimes cannot be settled on this basis. Israel was a nation as well as a church, and God gave rules for both. If one man kills another, God in mercy will forgive him, when he repents. In fact, whatever sin a man may commit, be it ever so heinous, he is still eligible for God’s abundant mercy. God knows the heart, and hence can forgive, and even forget. But if penalty were suspended whenever a man repents, every criminal would claim repentance and save himself from the gallows! If it became known that penalty was remitted upon repentance, all prisons would soon be emptied!
Some forget that though God forgives, He does not often remove the penalty for transgression. David may sin and repent; but he does not escape the result of his sin. He suffers so long as he lives. A man transgresses the rules of life, and whatever the transgression, however deeply he has sinned, God can and will forgive. But only under most unusual circumstances does the man escape the natural consequences of what he has done. He is forgiven, but usually he also suffers for his misdeeds.
Government “is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). Civil law has its place.
Therefore God’s requirement of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is not something to be lightly disposed of as an OT ordinance. It is on this principle that government today is founded. If there were no punishment for evil, conditions would be even worse than they are now. “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?” (Rom. 13:3).
But if there is to be punishment for evil, how shall that punishment be decided? The answer is that the punishment should fit the crime. Hence, “he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.” This seems eminently fair. This is justice and equity.
2. The land keep a sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was made for man; now God announces a “sabbath” rest for the land also. All work on the land was to cease, and the land was to rest. What grew of itself might be used by anyone, rich or poor, including the stranger.
8. Seven sabbaths of years. That is, after 49 years. At the close of the Day of Atonement the trumpet was to be blown and the year of jubilee proclaimed.
10. The fiftieth year. Opinion has long differed as to whether the jubilee was the year following the sabbatical 49th, resulting in two successive cropless years, or whether the 50th year, counted inclusively, was the same as the 49th. One prevailing Jewish opinion is that the former was true under the first temple, and the latter afterwards. Verses 8-11 and the analogy of the Pentecost reckoning (ch. 23:15, 16), seem to imply a separate jubilee year, but vs. 20-22 are ambiguous. The only sabbatical years mentioned in history are after the exile, and they are not referred to as jubilees.
We have no historical proof of how, or whether, Israel followed these instructions before the captivity. There is little doubt that after the captivity the Jews observed at least the seventh year and that God did bless them. The best evidence of this observance is the fact that Alexander the Great, and later Julius Caesar, exempted the Jews from paying taxes in sabbatical years, on the ground that they would have no income that year (Josephus Antiquities xi. 8. 6; xiv. 10. 6).
15. Number of years. No man could sell land in perpetuity, but only until the year of jubilee. In that year all land returned to its original owner. This was no hardship to the man who had bought the property and now had to return it, for he had purchased it with a clear understanding that he must return it in the year of jubilee. Thus, if a man sold his property five years before the year of jubilee, he would not receive much for it; for there would be but a few harvests till that year.
20. What shall we eat? How could Israel subsist for an entire year, possibly two, without working their fields and garnering any harvest? God had foreseen this.
23. The land is mine. Though God had given the land of Palestine to His people, He still held title to it. The Israelites were stewards, not owners.
The sabbatical year and the year of jubilee were unique institutions without parallel in any other religion. What other religion than that of Jehovah would dare command its followers to abstain from work one year in seven and promise them God’s blessing and protection so that in the sixth year the land would yield enough for two years? Would not the failure of their God in giving them such a phenomenal increase be the undoing of their religion? Should God fail to provide, after one such experience the people would nevermore worship Jehovah.
It was at the close of the Day of Atonement in Tishri (v. 9) that the trumpets were blown and liberty was proclaimed. What a happy moment this must have been for those who had been in servitude and who had that day received atonement for their sins, and were now set at liberty. They could go home to begin life anew.
24. A redemption for the land. All property would automatically revert to the original owner in the year of jubilee, but it might be redeemed at any time by the owner, or by one of his kinsmen, upon payment of that which was due. The amount due was to be reckoned by the number of harvests between the time of redemption and the year of jubilee. The one who had bought the property paid for it according to the number of harvests until the year of jubilee—omitting of course the sabbatical years, when there was no harvest—and he was to be repaid accordingly. This provision enabled a man to recover his property at any time.
25. Thy brother be waxen poor. This legislation favored the poor and encouraged him to work for the recovery of his property. God sought to prevent some people from becoming very rich and others very poor. Had God’s original plan forthe land and for servitude been followed, extremes of poverty and wealth would have been unknown.
29. A dwelling house. Here the situation was entirely different, and a different rule applied. According to the ordinary rules of redemption, the purchaser of city property could have been dispossessed at any time. But such property could be “redeemed” only during the first year after it was sold. If it had not been redeemed within that time the buyer could retain it permanently. Inasmuch as the house had not been sold with the year of jubilee in mind, this was an outright sale, and thus not redeemable.
31. Houses of the villages. These were counted as belonging to “the fields,” and could therefore be redeemed at any time, and would return to the original owner in the year of jubilee. The Levites, however, were exempt from this provision. Their property could be redeemed at any time and would in any event revert to the owners in the year of release. The fields in the suburbs of their cities were common property, and could never be sold.
35. If thy brother. A brother, a stranger, or a sojourner in need was to be relieved. One who was comfortably situated must not take usury from a poor brother, nor make a profit on food sold to him (see on Ex. 22:25). Thus again is shown God’s care for the poor. God had delivered Israel from Egypt and was about to take them into the land of Canaan. As they had been the recipients of so much kindness, God wanted them to be kind to the unfortunate (see Matt. 10:8). Only thus could they receive God’s approval.
39. Serve as a bondservant. An Israelite who had been sold to serve another was not to be treated as a slave but as a hired servant. He was not to be treated harshly, and was to be released in the year of jubilee. It was not necessary for a servant to await the year of jubilee to be redeemed. The law provided for his release after any six years of service, if he so desired (see Ex. 21:1-6).
47. Sell himself unto the stranger. An Israelite who had become poor and sold himself into servitude could redeem himself, if able, or be redeemed, even from a non-Israelite. The price paid varied according to the years remaining until the year of release, for in that year he would automatically go out free. Thus the price paid for a servant and the price paid for his redemption were both reckoned in terms of the length of service before the year of liberty.
3. If ye walk. This chapter of Leviticus is a conditional prophecy delineating the blessings to come upon Israel for obedience and the punishments for disobedience. Many of these prophecies were fulfilled to a striking degree.
4. Rain in due season. Palestine was peculiarly dependent on rain at the usual times, for prosperity and plenty. In Egypt, Israel had seen the regular overflow of the Nile, which watered the land and made it fruitful (see on Gen. 41:34). Palestine was “a land of hills and valleys,” and so not adapted to irrigation (Deut. 11:10-12). Israel had not been used to rain, for it seldom rains in Egypt. Now they were coming to a land where their very existence depended upon rain from heaven. To reassure them God promised to send the rains in their season, “the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil” (Deut. 11:13, 14). It was not merely rain that was needed, but rain in “season.”
God warned them, however, that rain would not fall as a matter of course, that indeed there would “be no rain” (Deut. 11:17) if they turned from Him to worship idols. This was fulfilled during the days of Ahab (1 Kings 17:1).
14. If ye will not hearken. Dire punishments were threatened should Israel fail to serve God, and turn instead to other gods. Five increasingly severe punishments are predicted, after each of the first four of which God promises to send a sevenfold worse evil upon them (vs. 18, 21, 24, 28). “Seven” here probably denotes greatly intensified punishment rather than precise mathematical increase.
The first step in the fivefold punishment for persistent rebellion appears in vs. 14-17. All Israel’s history bears witness to the fulfillment of this threat.
18. Yet for all this. The second step is described in vs. 18-20 (see also Deut. 28:23, 24). This threat repeatedly found its fulfillment in the history of Israel. In the time of Haggai, God explained to His people why He had withheld rain from them—“Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house” (Haggai 1:9-11).
21. If ye walk contrary. The third step is given in vs. 21, 22. One instance of the fulfillment of this is given in 2 Kings 17:25; another, in Judges 5:6.
23. If ye will not be reformed. The fourth step appears in vs. 23-26.
25. The quarrel of my covenant. God had entered into covenant relation with Israel, and when they failed to keep their part of the covenant He would send the sword upon them, and also pestilence. Ezekiel repeated this threat (Eze. 5:12), which was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and later by the Romans.
26. Ten women. The famine would be so intense and bread so scarce that only one oven would be needed where ten had been used before.
27. For all this. The fifth step is stated in vs. 27-33. One fulfillment of this occurred in the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:28, 29), and another in that of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:9; Lam. 4:10).
31. Make your cities waste. Samaria and Jerusalem, for example (see on v. 27).
33. Scatter you. Not only in captivity by Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, but also by dispersion over various lands. See vol. 5, pp. 59-61; vol. 6, pp. 136ff.
34. Then shall the land rest. God had commanded that the land should rest every seventh year. This seems to have been the case for a time, but the custom later fell into disuse. Doubtless some thought that they might enrich themselves by refusing to let the land rest every seventh year. But as a result they lost the land altogether. God kept account of the time during which the land had been deprived of the Sabbath rest. And when destruction came, with the arrival of the Chaldeans, the land was given “rest” to make up for the time of transgression (2 Chron. 36:21). Seventy years would suggest that for 490 years the land had not kept “her sabbaths.”
40. If they shall confess. The Jews have suffered much in centuries gone by, and the present generation has been no exception. But God has not forsaken any individual Jew who will “confess.” The nation may be rejected, but whoever turns to God may yet be saved.
Lest any Gentile Christian should boast of this and think himself in a more favored position than the Jew, let him remember that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Rom. 11:20, 21). The conditions of salvation are the same for all. God is strict, and God is merciful—to all alike.
2. A singular vow. Rather, “a special vow” (RSV). A vow is solemn promise made to God to perform some service forHim, to present a gift, or to make a sacrifice. In the OT vows were often made when men were in distress or peril, or desired a favor from God. They made the vow on condition that God would fulfill their request. Thus Jacob vowed that if God would bless and prosper him and bring him safely back, he would serve God (Gen. 28:20-22). David made an unconditional vow (Ps. 132:2-5).
The ideal vow springs from a heart overflowing with love for God and possessed of a sincere desire to do something for Him, without any thought of reward. This is the spirit that prompted men of old to offer burnt offerings to God. Vows were entirely voluntary. God did not require them. “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;” but if a man did vow, God expected him to keep it (Deut. 23:21-23).
Under the stress of circumstances men sometimes make a vow that upon reflection they know they cannot keep. It is to this the wise man refers when he says, “It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry” (Prov. 20:25). This might be interpreted to mean, “It is foolish for a man to make a vow in haste and to regret it afterward.” He should have reflected on the wisdom of the vow before making it. An example of this kind of vow is that of the Jews banding themselves together “saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:12). It seems also that David was somewhat rash in vowing that he would neither enter his house nor sleep until he had found a place for God’s house (Ps. 132:2-5). Jephthah’s vow was rashly made (Judges 11:34-40).
God knew that men would make vows they could not perform. He did not wish to discourage men from making vows, nor did He wish to release them from vows already made. He therefore provided a way by which to commute the obligation. This chapter deals with the redemption of vows.
According to this plan, a vow could be redeemed by a money payment, according to a prescribed scale. If the vow concerned a sacrificial animal, it would not be commuted into money but must be offered on the altar. But all other vows could be “redeemed.”
A man might vow himself or any person or thing over which he had jurisdiction—wife, children, purchased servants, beasts, houses, fields. If the sanctuary could not receive the gift—as would be the case in many instances—the man could still fulfill his vow by paying the redemption price.
3. Thy estimation. The sum for which a person might be redeemed was set by God, and was according to a graduated scale based on sex and age. For a male it was 5 shekels for a child up to 5 years; 20 shekels, up to 20 years; 50 shekels, to 60 years; and above that, 15 shekels. For females it was approximately half these amounts. However, if the man was poor, the scale need not be adhered to strictly, but might be adjusted by the priest to fit the man’s ability to pay. It is to be noted that although there was a difference in the redemption price, the difference was based on age, not on rank. The high priest was rated no higher than the common laborer.
9. If it be a beast. When a clean beast was vowed it became “holy” and could not be exchanged or redeemed. It must be sacrificed. The man might wish to substitute the animal for a better one, or a poorer one. But neither might be done. If any were detected doing this, both animals became “holy” and both must be sacrificed.
14. Sanctify his house. When a man vowed a house the priest appraised it, and the value he named should “stand.” It could not be changed and was not subject to bargaining. The man could redeem it at the evaluated price, plus one fifth extra, and “it shall be his” (v. 15).
16. A field of his possession. If a man vowed a field, it was to be appraised according to the amount of seed needed for sowing it. In the price thus arrived at, the year of jubilee was to be taken into consideration (v. 17), for at that time it would revert to the owner.
20. Sold the field. This statement is of uncertain meaning, and many different interpretations of it have been attempted. It probably means that he had sold it to another man before he vowed it, with theresult that he had no right to vow it at all, yet wanted to receive credit for that which was not his to give. If this be the meaning of the verse, he had in principle done what Ananias and Sapphira did when they pretended to give a certain sum but in reality did not.
22. A field which he hath bought. If a person bought a field from the man who owned it, he could vow it only till the time of the jubilee year, because it would then revert to the original owner.
26. The firstling of the beasts. The first-born of all animals belonged to God, and no one could give to God what was already His. These already belonged to Him (Ex. 13:2, 12; 22:30). An unclean animal, however, might be redeemed. If he did not redeem it the animal was sold.
28. No devoted thing. The Hebrew word here used for “devoted thing” denotes a far more solemn vow than is indicated by the simple term “devoted.” It means a vow that cannot be broken or redeemed and that must be kept under pain of heavy penalties, even curses and imprecations. It was with this kind of vow that certain men bound themselves to kill Paul—“with an oath of execration” (Acts 23:12, margin). A devoted thing could not be redeemed. If it was offered to the Lord, no change or substitution could be made.
30. The tithe of the land. Already belonging to God, the tithe cannot be vowed. The tithe of grain might be redeemed, but not that of cattle (v. 33).
31. Redeem ought of his tithes. The question has been raised whether it is legitimate now to withhold the tithe if later a fifth is added to it. This question reveals a misunderstanding of the words of Scripture. It was not a matter of withholding tithe that demanded a fifth to be added. It was a question of paying the tithe in kind, in wheat, barley, or whatever produce was tithed. There might be cases in which a man needed wheat for sowing, and would rather pay in money than in wheat. Under these conditions he might redeem the tithe by having the wheat appraised and paying this sum plus one fifth. The withholding of tithe was never contemplated. As noted above, it was only grain and garden produce that could thus be redeemed. Cattle could not be redeemed or exchanged.
32. Passeth under the rod. Rabbinical writers give the following explanation: When a man was to give the tithe of his sheep or calves to God, he shut up the whole flock in one fold, in which there was a narrow door capable of letting out one animal at a time. The owner about to give the tenth to the Lord stood by the door with a rod in his hand, the end of which was dipped in vermilion or red ocher. The mothers of these lambs or calves stood without. When the door was opened the young ones ran out to join their mothers, and as they passed out, the owner stood with his rod and touched every tenth one, coloring it. Whether poor or lean, perfect or blemished, it was re-received as the legitimate tithe.
34. These are the commandments. With these words Leviticus closes, giving God as the authority for its contents.
1. The Lord spake. Moses emphasizes the fact that the Lord spoke to him in the tabernacle, in the Wilderness of Sinai, because subsequent revelations after its erection took place there. Previous revelations had been on Mt. Sinai itself. The One who met with Moses was Jehovah. The Hebrews had now been in the wilderness nearly a year (see Ex. 19:1; Num. 10:11, 12).
The tabernacle. Literally, “the tent of the meeting” (see Num. 3:7; 4:3; Ex. 27:21; Lev. 1:1, 3). The place where God met Moses and His people.
The first day. This was one month after the erection of the tabernacle (Ex. 40:2, 17; Num. 9:1, 2).
2. Take ye the sum. The enumeration and classification of males was a wise step to ensure orderly arrangements for the encampment and for marching. That this was its purpose is suggested by the fact that the numbering was evidently completed by the 20th of the same month, the very day on which Israel set forth from the Wilderness of Sinai to journey to the Wilderness of Paran (ch. 10:11). There had been a previous enumeration, for the purpose of levying the half-shekel tax needed for the erection of the tabernacle (see Ex. 30:12; 38:26). This second numbering was less a census than an organizational procedure—a mustering of men of military age by tribes and smaller units, with a leader (Num. 1:4, 5) appointed for each tribe.
House of their fathers. Here the group is the family. The term may, however, be used for an entire tribe descended from one ancestor (ch. 17:2), or again, a division of a tribe (Num. 3:24; Ex. 6:14).
Their polls. Literally, “their skulls.” This is a term used to designate individuals.
3. Twenty years old. On arriving at this age every male in Israel became responsible for paying the Temple half shekel (Ex. 30:14) and was considered fit for the responsibilities of war.
Aaron. Aaron was to help in the numbering, though the Levites as a whole were excluded from it. Moses and Aaron represented the highest authority in the nation.
By their armies. No such rule was laid down in the former numbering (Ex. 30). This was evidently a military registration.
4. A man of every tribe. Men of authority, respect, and dignity were made responsible for assisting in this work.
5. The names. Verses 5-15 contain a list of 12 chief men, whose names recur in chs. 2, 7, and 10. Most of the names have meanings, as Elizur, “God is a rock.” Several of the names appear in the NT, some in slightly different forms. Eight of these men had names that are compounds of ’El, a title of God, but only one of their fathers’ names (Deuel in v. 14) has ’El in it. This sudden increase in ’El-names suggests an increased interest in the God of their forefathers as the leaders of the Israelites looked forward to the deliverance promised by God (’Elohim) to Joseph (Gen. 50:24, 25).
8. Nethaneel. Meaning “the gift of God.” This is a name found frequently in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
10.Elishama. Meaning “God hath heard.”
Gamaliel. Meaning “God is a reward,” used in (Acts 5:34).
16. Princes. This title is also given to the spies in ch. 13:2, but there translated “ruler.” These 12 persons were “called,” that is, chosen, to help Moses in carrying out the census.
Renowned. Literally, “named” or “called.” It refers to men mentioned with respect by God or fellow men.
Heads of thousands. Jethro had suggested to Moses that he take men of authority to help him in his administration (Ex. 18:17, 21);he was now commanded to take men of position, the chief commanders.
Thousands. This word probably refers to a large group such as a clan, a tribal division. It is also used of a military division. See p. 556.
The registration of God’s people under Moses has its lesson for the church today under Christ. The numbering of His children by name suggests the fact that God knows each of His children personally (2 Tim. 2:19). The divine Shepherd is acquainted with each member of His flock (John 10:3), and the book of life has an eternal meaning for each child of God (Rev. 3:5).
18. All the congregation. The number for each tribe is given (vs. 20E43). For their order of march and their arrangement in camp, see on ch. 2.
46. Numbered. The number of men of military age is put at 603,550. This total is exactly the same as that given in Ex. 38:26, but in Num. 11:21 and Ex. 12:37 the round number 600,000 appears.
47. The Levites. The Levites were exempt from military service; hence they were not numbered with the tribal forces. Levi was a tribe devoted especially to the service of God (v. 50) in place of the first-born (ch. 3:12). There were 12 tribes besides Levi, because Jacob had adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph (Gen. 48:5, 6); consequently, instead of one tribe of Joseph, there were two separate tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. A separate command from Jehovah was given in respect to the Levites (Num. 1:48-50). Their duties were to be of a different nature, and are stated more fully in chs. 3 and 4.
50. Tabernacle of testimony. “Testimony” refers to the Ten Commandments. It is found 61 times in the OT. When it is used in connection with the ark, the veil, Aaron’s rod, an individual, or the congregation as a whole, the emphasis and importance lie with the Ten Commandments (see on Ex. 25:16). The high honor of the ark was not due to anything inherent within that piece of furniture itself, but to the fact that it was the resting place of the two tables of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The word “testimony” is occasionally translated “witness” (Num. 17:7, 8; 2 Chron. 24:6). The words “witness” and “testimony” (Ex. 25:16; 38:21; 40:3) are suggestive of the fact that the Ten Commandments speak of the moral and ethical nature of Jehovah’s character, and that He looks for the same characteristics to be manifested in His people.
Minister. The word thus translated is used in Numbers for the sacred service of the Levites only. The meaning of the word is always honorable, and refers also to the holy ministrations of angels (Heb. 1:14). In its various forms it is used of certain kinds of secular service of special importance or responsibility, of Joshua the personal servant of Moses (Ex. 24:13; 33:11), and of the personal ministry of Elisha for Elijah (1 Kings 19:21).
51. The stranger. That is, a non-Levite, one who had no authority to approach the sanctuary, a Jew—not necessarily a foreigner, but one not included in the immediate context (cf. Deut. 25:5; Hosea 5:7; Ex. 29:33).
52. Standard. From the verb “to look,” “to behold,” “to lift up a banner.” The noun therefore suggests something conspicuous, distinguished, or exalted. It may be applied to any sign or mark, such as a prophetic sign (Ex. 3:12), a miracle (Joshua 24:17), a memorial (Joshua 4:6), or to the heavenly bodies as signs (Gen. 1:14; Jer. 10:2). Some suggest that the word “company” would give better sense here than “standard” (see Num. 2:3, 10, 18, 25).
The Jews have a tradition that Reuben’s standard had the figure of a man, that of Judah a lion, the standard of Ephraim an ox, and that of Dan the figure of an eagle.
53. No wrath. That is, for the violation of the sanctity of the tabernacle, which was the dwelling place of God among His people. In the NT the individual Christian is God’s holy sanctuary (1 Cor. 6:19), as also is the church as a whole (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). In both of these texts the word translated “temple” is the one that applies to the holy and most holy places, exclusive of all other buildings adjacent to it in the Temple area.
The word translated “wrath” is from a root allied to the Syriac and Arabic that means “to break off,” “to snap off.” Thenoun, masculine, is “splinter,” a piece broken off. So the wrath of God here involves the idea of severing from the church one who has sinned concerning God’s holy things. The Levites were stationed round about the tabernacle to prevent any unauthorized person from entering the sacred precincts of God’s dwelling place.
Outside the priestly cordon the laity of Israel pitched their tents according to a divinely given plan. God was in their midst. His unapproachableness was stressed. Only designated persons of particular office could draw near to Him. This was strictly observed. The Christian ideal is disclosed by Paul in Heb. 4:16, wherein he exhorts the Christian to come “boldly unto the throne of grace,” into the very presence of Jehovah.
1. And unto Aaron. These instructions were addressed to both Moses and Aaron. Moses alone is mentioned in v. 34. But since Aaron and his sons had to pack the articles to be carried by the Kohathites, it was but natural that he too should be informed (ch. 4:5, 15). Chapter 2 contains the account of the camping arrangements of the tribes in the wilderness. That of the four divisions of Levi is given in ch. 3:23, 29, 35, 38. The following diagram illustrates the arrangement of the tribes of Israel in relationship to the sanctuary:
2. By his own standard. See on ch. 1:52.
Ensign. The standard would pertain to a larger group (vs. 3, 10, 18, 25), although each family group would display its “ensign.”
Far off. The injunction to preserve the holiness of the sanctuary area was strictly enjoined and enforced.
3. East … rising of the sun. Such a doubling in expression is common in Hebrew. Exodus 26:18, for example, reads literally, “for the south side southwards.”
Judah. As the pre-eminent tribe, Judah is assigned the east, the position of honor. Some suggest that the name Judah comes from the verb “to praise,” from Leah’s words at his birth, “Now will I praise” (Gen. 29:35). With regard to him Jacob predicted, “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise” (Gen. 49:8).
10. Reuben. This tribe camped “on the south side,” literally, “southwards.” The four quarters of the compass were named from the viewpoint of a person facing east. Reuben was the eldest of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gen. 35:23), but forfeited the honor and prerogatives of the first-born because of instability of character.
17. Midst of the camp. If the order of mention in this chapter indicates the order of march, the Levites with the sanctuary followed the camps of Judah and Reuben. The account of their actual march, however (ch. 10:14-21), places the tabernacle, that is, the tent and the court hangings, between the first two divisions, Judah and Reuben. It was sent on ahead so that it could be set up and ready to receive the “sanctuary,” that is, the holy things—the ark, altars, etc.—that followed Reuben in the center of the marching host. It is not possible to determine whether the Levites and the sanctuary preceded Reuben and his group, or followed them. In marching as in camping, the various divisions under their respective banners proceeded strictly in formation.
In his place. Literally, “each individual upon his hand.” The expression, “upon the hand of the Jordan” (ch. 13:29, Heb.), is translated in the KJV, “by the coast of Jordan.” See also Deut. 23:12 and Jer. 6:3, where the word for “hand” is in both instances translated “place.”
18. Camp of Ephraim. The second son of Joseph (Gen. 41:52; 46:20), Ephraim was reckoned among the children of Jacob, blessed by him, and given preference over Manasseh (Gen. 48:1, 5, 13, 14, 17, 20). The name is connected with the verb “to bear fruit,” “to be fruitful,” with the noun depicting “a fruitful land,” one of grain or pasture.
25. Camp of Dan. Dan was the son of Jacob and Bilhah (Gen. 30:6; 35:25). The meaning of the name is “judge.” Its verb root means “to judge,” “to act as a judge.” The equivalent Arabic root means “to be obedient,” “to be submissive,” also “to govern,” “to recompense.” The exalted position of Dan in the circumstances of this verse is in great contrast to the depths to which he afterward fell; for he settled among the heathen, dropped out of the sacred account, and finds no part among the 12 tribes of the New Jerusalem (see Judges 18; Rev. 7:5-8).
34. So they set forward. The multitude that came out of Egypt had now become like a disciplined army on the march, grouped according to tribe, clan, and family.
Chapters 1 and 2 give us the size and discipline of the Israelite host. The center of attention was the tabernacle, God’s dwelling place. Jehovah was in their midst (Deut. 4:7; 23:14; Ps. 78:52, 53; cf. Rom. 8:31), the pledge of hope, security, and progress. He was their Protector (Hosea 11:10, mighty to deliver (Isa. 49:25, 26). He was to them a light by night and a welcome shade by day (Isa. 4:5). All these concepts centered in the tabernacle, the abiding place of God.
The awe and reverence the tabernacle inspired were due to the fact of Jehovah’s indwelling. The separation of the divine dwelling place from the common walk of life helped to instill respect for authority and a sense of discipline among the people. Today the church is like an army on the march, and Jehovah is with her (see 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9).
1. These also are the generations. This is a common formula that occurs frequently in Genesis (Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). It is a title used to introduce a new section of the narrative. “Generations” literally means “origins,” and is from the verb frequently translated “to bear,” “to bring forth,” “to give birth to.” It means the account or the history of the person or persons named.
Aaron and Moses. These men are setforth as the chosen heads of the tribe of Levi, which was selected for sacred service. One would expect the name of Moses to come first. But no descendants of Moses are mentioned; and as the passage deals only with the descendants of Aaron, his name takes precedence. Some have suggested that inasmuch as no descendants of Moses are mentioned, but only those of Aaron, Moses, as the one who gave them special instructions in regard to their sacred duties, was regarded as their spiritual father. The office of Moses, though higher than that of Aaron, was personal and not tribal, whereas Aaron was the progenitor of a long and distinguished line of priests.
In the day. An important day in the history of the Levites, it marks the point of time that saw the beginning of their organization and commission for the sacred duties of the church.
In mount Sinai. It may be there is a glance back to Ex. 24:1, where Nadab and Abihu are mentioned, though not as sons of Aaron (see Ex. 24:16; 31:18; Lev. 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34; Num. 28:6).
2. Sons of Aaron. Four in number only up to the time of the erection of the tabernacle, when Nadab and Abihu died.
3. Anointed. Numerous passages of Scripture deal with the anointing of the high priest only (see Ex. 29:7, 29; Lev. 8:12). Others mention his sons also (Ex. 28:41; 30:30; 40:15). As to the difference between the anointing of the high priest and that of the common priests, see on Ex. 29:8. Literally, “to smear.” It is allied with the Arabic word “to wipe,” “to stroke with the hand.” Used with the word “oil” it means “to consecrate to sacred service,” and is the only word in the OT so used. It is the root from which the term Messiah comes. The Greek word by which “anoint” is translated is used five times in the NT, four of which refer to the anointing of Christ by the Father. It emphasizes, therefore, that Christ (a word from the same Greek root, see on Matt. 1:1) was “anointed” by divine authority, and that He was the recipient of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the richest manner possible (see Acts 10:38).
Consecrated to minister. Literally, “he filled their hands.” This is an ancient expression (Judges 17:5, 12), the exact meaning of which is obscure. Some say it meant to fill the hand with money (see Judges 18:4). Others maintain that the “filling” has reference to the office and authority with which the recipient was invested. The exact meaning seems to have been lost sight of, since it was later applied to the altar (Num. 7:88; Eze. 43:26). The descendants of Aaron became priests automatically, but his first sons were appointed, having been born before their father was called to that sacred office.
4. Before the Lord. This expression, occurring twice in this verse, seems to stress not so much their unnatural death as the grief of God at the incident.
Strange fire. Literally, “unlawful fire” or “unauthorized fire,” since the word “stranger” in Num. 1:51 means one without credentials. For the reason why it was unlawful, see on Lev. 9:24; 10:1.
They had no children. This fact is not stated in Lev. 10, but is mentioned in 1 Chron. 24:2. Had these two men had children, they, and not Eleazar and Ithamar, would have succeeded Aaron to the high priesthood. All priestly families traced their descent from Eleazar and Ithamar.
In the sight of Aaron. Literally, “at the faces of Aaron,” meaning “during the lifetime of Aaron” (see Gen. 11:28). The descendants of these two men were divided into courses in the time of David as follows: 16 for Eleazar’s offspring and 8 for those of Ithamar (1 Chron. 24:3, 4).
6. Bring … near. This is a common expression, not used in the technical sense (ch. 16:5) of an outward act of presentation, but simply of assigning to men their designated duties. It is an expression used of subordinates approaching to receive orders.
Minister unto him. The Levites were under Aaron to assist him in his responsibilities and to guard the tabernacle. Aaron here represents the entire priestly caste, which in v. 9 is referred to as “Aaron and … his sons.” For duties later given to the Levites, see Chron. 23:28-30; 25:1-7; 26:12, 20, 29-31.
7. Keep his charge. That is, they will carry on all the duties of service of Aaron and other priests.
Of the whole congregation. These words refer to the sacrificial ritual conducted in behalf of the laity of Israel.
8. Instruments. That is, the furniture and vessels of the tabernacle.
9. Aaron. Aaron and his sons became the instructors of the Levites. They were the ones to whom the Levites were responsible in the discharge of their duties.
Wholly given. From nethunim nethunim, literally, “given given,” a typically Hebrew expression; the related word nethinim, “dedicated,” was later applied to foreigners who became servants of the Temple in the time of Ezra (Ezra 7:24; etc.). They are believed by some to have been descendants of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:27).
They are many helpful lessons to be found with respect to the details of the organization of the priests and the Levites. The Levites were “wholly given” to Aaron as high priest, that is, they were under his full control. The fully surrendered Christian, completely in Christ’s hands, controlled and energized by the Holy Spirit, is of the “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9).
The Levites were to give all of their time and strength to cooperating with Aaron in the ministry of the sanctuary. The believer today is to cooperate with Christ for the spiritual health and growth of the church. A price was paid to redeem the first-born (see on vs. 12, 13). Christ paid the price of His blood to redeem sinners. Those that enter into the church, and live by faith, are enrolled in the books of heaven.
Out of the children of Israel. The entire tribe of Levi belonged to God and was given to His sacred service. Similarly various types of workers in the Christian church are spoken of as “given” (Eph. 4:11).
10. The stranger. The word here does not have the same meaning as in ch. 1:51, where it signifies a non-Levite. Here it includes the Levites; in fact it refers to them particularly. The Levites were not allowed to intrude upon the special sphere of Aaron and his sons. Violation of this divine injunction was one of the sins of Jeroboam, who permitted non-Levites to perform priestly functions (see 1 Kings 12:25-33).
Cometh nigh. These words do not mean to approach physically, in the ordinary sense, but to come to perform any of the sacred duties of the priesthood.
12. Instead of all the firstborn. Anciently the father in the family performed the priestly functions (Ex. 13:8; Judges 17:10), and passed that office on to the first-born son. That custom is now replaced by the appointment of the Levites, who had rallied to Moses at the time of the worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32:26).
13. On the day. This is a reference to Ex. 13:1-3.
Hallowed unto me. All the first-born are Jehovah’s because He did not slay them with the Egyptians. Every human soul belongs primarily to God, but here the Lord claims those brought out from Egypt as His first fruits. The devoting of the first-born to the Lord is commanded in Ex. 22:29; 34:20; 13:11-15; Num. 18:15.
Mine shall they be. Literally, “for my possession they shall be.” Claimed by God as set apart to Him, declared so by His name (see Ex. 6:8; 12:12).
15. Every male from a month old. See ch. 18:16. The first-born were not to be redeemed until they reached the age of one month; therefore the Levites who took their place were numbered only from above that age.
17. Sons of Levi. To the three men mentioned in this verse are traced the three main divisions of the Levites in Jerusalem after the Exile (Gen. 46:11; Ex. 6:16; cf. Num. 26:57).
18. Libni, and Shimei. Repeated in Ex. 6:17; 1 Chron. 6:17. See also 1 Chron. 23:7; 26:21, where Libni is given as Laadan.
Kohath. Mentioned also in Ex. 6:18, 19.
Amram. A member of the family of Kohath, and the father of Moses and Aaron (Ex. 6:18, 20).
20. Mahli. Compare the name of the first husband of Ruth (Ruth 1:2), and the feminine form of the same name in Num. 26:33.
21. Gershon. The Gershon family camped west of the tabernacle, between it and the standard of Ephraim (cf. chs. 1:53; 2:18; 3:23).
Shimites. This family is mentioned in Zech. 12:13 as being of the house of Levi.
23. Behind the tabernacle westward. The term “westward” is, literally, “seaward,” referring to the Mediterranean Sea. The Hebrew mentally faced eastward when thinking of the points of the compass (see on Ex. 3:1). Of course, the Mediterranean Sea would be considered “westward” only from the viewpoint of a person situated in the land of Palestine. Some have asserted that use in the Pentateuch of later terminology, such as “seaward” to mean “westward,” is obvious evidence of later, non-Mosaic authorship. That later terminology appears occasionally in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the OT is a fact not open to question; but the conclusion that this necessarily indicates later authorship than that commonly accepted is entirely unwarranted.
The republication of a 17th-century account of the founding of New Amsterdam, for instance, would be rather meaningless to many modern readers unless New Amsterdam was explained as the original name for New York City. The substitution of “New York” for “New Amsterdam” would, however, in no way affect either the accuracy, reliability, or authorship of the account. Thus it was with terminology in the books of Moses if the inspired record was to remain intelligible to later readers. The Hebrew people, however, regarded the Sacred Scriptures with too much respect to permit any change that would alter the thought.
24. Lael. An unusual name in its formation, being formed of the preposition “to” and the word “God”—“belonging to God.” There is but one other example of this in the OT, Lemuel (Prov. 31:1).
25. The tabernacle. The framework of the tabernacle itself was in charge of the Merarites (v. 36); so the “tabernacle” here evidently means the inner layer of ten curtains (see Ex. 26:1-14).
The tent. The second layer of 11 curtains made of the hair of goats.
The covering. The final layers of rams’ skins dyed red and “badgers’ skins” (see Ex. 26:14 and on Ex. 25:5).
26. Cords. That is, those of the tabernacle and of part of those of the court. The Merarites also had charge of part of the latter (vs. 36, 37).
29. Kohath shall pitch. The position of Kohath was between the tabernacle and the standard of Reuben (see ch. 2:10).
30. Elizaphan. Meaning “God has watched over” (cf. 1 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 29:13).
31. The ark, and the table, and the candlestick. See on Ex. 25:10-39.
The altars. The two altars, one for burnt offerings (Ex. 27:1) and one for incense (Ex. 30:1-10), were alike entrusted to their care.
The hanging. The curtains of the tabernacle and the court were assigned to the Gershonites (v. 25). The “hanging” refers to the veil that separated the holy from the most holy place (Ex. 26:31, 33, 35; 27:21; 30:6; 36:35; 38:27; 40:3, 22, 26; Lev. 4:17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23). The expression in Num. 4:5 “the covering vail” means, literally, “the veil of the screen” (also Ex. 40:3, 21).
32. Eleazar. Eleazar was a Kohathite (see Ex. 6:18, 20, 23). He was chief over Elizaphan and all the Kohathites, and as the eldest surviving son of Aaron, was therefore the chief prince or overseer of the Levites.
35. Abihail. The father of Esther had the same name (Esther 2:15).
36. The boards. See on Ex. 26:15, 19. For the bars, pillars, and sockets, see on Ex. 26:19-26.
38. Moses. Moses held the position of honor in the camp, the central place that gave him ready access to all parts.
Aaron. The hereditary priest, representing with Moses the civil and sacerdotal authority.
Keeping the charge. The priests were encamped on the east of the tabernacle, the place of honor.
40. Number all the firstborn. In order to substitute the Levites for them (vs. 41, 45; cf. vs. 12, 13). Since there were 273 fewer Levites, the first-born had to redeem 273 of their number at 5 shekels each (vs. 39, 43, 46-50). This was the regular redemption price of the first-born (see ch. 18:15, 16).
2. Sons of Kohath. Kohath was the second son of Levi. His descendants are listedsecond in ch. 3:19, 27, after the Gershonites. As the Levites were separated from Israel for sacred service, so the Kohathites are now separated from the rest of the Levites for more sacred duties.
3. Thirty years old. These men would be in the prime of their physical life, and well fitted for the work of carrying the tabernacle and its equipment. In ch. 8:23-26 the age is given as between 25 and 50 years. Later writers record a further adjustment, attributed to David, beginning the service at 20 years of age (1 Chron. 23:24, 27; 2 Chron. 31:17; Ezra 3:8). An Apocryphal writer also mentions this (1 Esdras 5:58). The first injunction, giving the beginning age as 30 years, may have been a temporary measure. Thirty years marked the age at which a Jew was considered mature and ready to assume all the responsibilities of his rights and privileges (cf. Luke 3:23). Beyond the age of 50 a Levite was not bound to do service, but merely to assist in the tabernacle according to his ability (Num. 8:25, 26).
The host. From a Hebrew word used for an army in ordered array, and so used again and again in the Scriptures. It may also be translated “warfare,” referring to the fighting service in which the recruits and their officers had to engage. In this verse it has reference to the sacred duties of a soldier of God. This is the Christian of today understands as the service of a soldier of the cross.
4. Most holy things. That is, the ark, the table of shewbread, the candlestick, altars, the veils, and the various sanctuary implements. The Hebrew expression is the one given for the most holy place in Ex. 26:33.
5. Covering vail. See Ex. 35:12; 39:34; Luke 23:45. The reference here is to the veil that divided the holy from the most holy place (Ex. 26:31-33). The first veil, for the door of the tabernacle, was committed to the care of the Gershonites (Num. 4:25).
6. Of blue. The ark was the only article of holy furniture that was covered with a blue (or violet) cloth when being carried from place to place, to mark it distinctly.
Staves. The poles by which the ark was carried were apparently never taken out of the rings (Ex. 25:14, 15). Presumably, Aaron and his sons entered the most holy place in order to cover it.
7. The table of shewbread. Literally, “the table of the faces,” meaning the “table of the Presence,” referring to the bread that was placed before the Lord.
Spoons, and the bowls. See Ex. 25:29.
Continual bread. This expression does not occur again in the Bible. The explanation is found in Ex. 25:30, in harmony with the literal words here: “the bread of continuity.” Compare with the NT terms, meaning “the bread of the setting out” (Matt. 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4), and “the placing forth of the loaves” (Heb. 9:2).
8. Cloth of scarlet. This is an additional covering, beyond what was used for other articles.
9. Candlestick of the light. This full name occurs again in Ex. 35:14. For the candlestick, or lampstand, see on Ex. 25:31.
His tongs. See on Ex. 25:38.
Snuffdishes. The same word is translated “censers” (v. 14 and ch. 16:6), and “firepans” (Ex. 27:3; 2 Kings 25:15; Jer. 52:19). The reference may be to shallow metal pans or saucers.
10. Bar. Probably referring to staves, or poles, that were put through the rings for carrying (Ex. 30:4, 5). The same word is translated “staff” in Num. 13:23, and “yoke” in Nahum 1:13.
11. Golden altar. The clear altar of incense, overlaid with gold (Ex. 30:3).
12. Instruments of ministry. The instruments, knives, vessels, pans, etc., that were used within the tabernacle. Some commentators refer this expression to the “cloths of service” mentioned in Ex. 31:10.
13. The altar. That is, the bronze altar of burnt offerings (Ex. 27:1-3).
A purple cloth. The purple or deep red cloth may have been used as a distinctive mark, because this was the altar of burnt offerings that stood in the courtyard, and not in the holy place.
This verse speaks of bearing away the “ashes.” Many commentators say nothing about this for the reason that the meaning of the word thus translated is uncertain. The root verb is used but 11 times in the OT and is generally rendered “maketh …fat” (Prov. 15:30) or “shall be made fat” (Prov. 11:25; 13:4; 28:25; Isa. 34:7). The noun, found seven times, is without exception translated “fatness.” The same root, used eight times and listed as a separate noun, is translated “ashes.” The adjective, three times in the OT, is rendered “fat.” All of this suggests that the reference may be to the burned fat or grease that accumulated from the burnt offerings.
14. Basons. These were for the blood that was to be sprinkled upon the altar. Amos 6:6 has the same word for wine containers. In that case it may suggest either the red color of the wine or the inebriety of the drinkers.
15. After that. No Levite was allowed to touch the holy things until they had been covered and packed by Aaron and his priests; the Kohathites would then simply lift up the bundles and transport them (vs. 12-14).
To bear it. The Levites were the regular porters (2 Sam. 15:24). Upon two unusual occasions other arrangements were made (1 Sam. 6:8; 2 Sam. 6:3).
Touch any holy thing. The word translated “holy thing” is probably a collective term referring to all the sacred objects.
16. Eleazar. Apparently Eleazar was held personally responsible for the transport of the sacred articles and for their general care.
Oil. See on Ex. 27:20.
Sweet incense. See on Ex. 30:34.
Daily meat offering. This cereal, or meal, offering may be identical with the “meat offering” offered twice daily along with the burnt offering (Ex. 29:38-41; Neh. 10:33), or, more likely, the meal offering for the anointed priests (Lev. 6:20-23).
17. And unto Aaron. Aaron was instructed by Jehovah, inasmuch as it was the duty of the priests to oversee the Kohathites.
18. Cut ye not off. Do not cause the Kohathites to be slain by neglecting your duty of supervision. If the priests were careless, the Kohathites would likely follow their example, and then come under condemnation. Aaron and the Kohathites were of the same tribe. Yet the sacred things could not be touched, and some of them not even looked upon, by the Kohathites. Therefore in moral responsibility the anointed priests were enjoined to be an example, for they were held accountable for their humbler brethren. Similarly, the workers in the Christian church must always be examples of Christlikeness, of victorious living, of full devotion to the truth and all it involves.
19. That they may live. The reward for the faithful, as promised today, is immortality, which has its source in Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:17, 29; John 1:4; 6:47; Rev. 21:27).
Appoint them. In God’s work there must be submission to His will. We are not to refuse to accept certain tasks merely because of inclination otherwise.
21. Moses. Aaron cooperated in carrying out the requirements (vs. 1, 19, 34).
22. The sons of Gershon. There were but two (ch. 3:21). The work of carrying all the hangings and coverings was the task of the Gershonites (vs. 24-28), who used ox wagons for this purpose (ch. 7:7).
25. Curtains. That is, to the ten curtains that were the inner covering of the tabernacle (Ex. 26:1, 2).
Tabernacle. The boards of the tabernacle were in charge of the Merarites (v. 31), but the 11 curtains of goats’ hair which covered them are here referred to (see Ex. 26:7, 8).
Badgers’ skins. The outermost covering of all (Ex. 26:14; see on Ex. 25:5).
Hanging for the door. See on Ex. 26:36.
26. Hangings of the court. See on Ex. 27:9.
For the door. See on Ex. 27:16.
Instruments. See on Ex. 27:19.
27. Appointment of the Aaron. Literally, “by the mouth of Aaron,” that is, at his command. The priests were to give the necessary orders to the Gershonites (ch. 3:6, 7).
28. Ithamar. Ithamar was the head overseer of both the Gershonites and the Merarites (v. 33). His was the personal responsibility.
29. Sons of Merari. There were but two families of these (ch. 3:33).
30. Into the service. The same word is translated “host” in v. 3.
31. Charge. The duty of the Merarites was the transport of the actual framework of the tabernacle itself. They too used wagonsons (ch. 7:8). Their burdens would be much heavier than those the Kohathites carried, for they were all the solid parts of the structures, with their accessories.
Boards. See on Ex. 26:15.
Bars. See on Ex. 26:26.
Pillars. See on Ex. 26:32.
Sockets. This is, for the boards of the tabernacle and also for the pillars. See on Ex. 26:19.
32. Pillars of the court. For the pillars and sockets see Ex. 27:10-12.
Cords. See on Ex. 35:18.
By name. That is, individual allotment of a particular thing to a particular person.
34. The chief of the congregation. Literally, “the princes of the congregation” (cf. Num. 16:2; 31:13; Ex. 16:22; Joshua 9:15).
Numbered. Not all males descended from Kohath (see ch. 3:28), but only those from 30 to 50 (ch. 4:35).
40. Those that were numbered. The number given in this verse is slightly more than a third part of their males, or all who were fit for service (see ch. 3:22).
47. Service of the ministry. Held by some to be the singing of the Levite choir accompanied by musical instruments, during the sacrificial services. It is to be noted that the age is 30 years and up. This is the age at which Jesus began His ministry (Luke 3:23).
The precise commands detailing duties to particular tribes, clans, and individuals, with age groups specified, have a lesson for the church today. The apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 12 speaks of “spiritual gifts” (v. 1), “diversities of gifts” (v. 4), and “differences of administrations” (v. 5). There are also “diversities of operations” (v. 6); but through all and in all there is “the same God,” “the same Lord,” “the same Spirit.” Also “the body is one,” though of “many members” (v. 12); and all must work harmoniously, that there be no tearing to pieces (v. 25). The organized unity of the desert church has its counterpart in the church with its members baptized into vital connection with the Holy Spirit (v. 13). It is the entrance of the Holy Spirit that conforms all into one body,even the body of Jesus Christ.
2. Put out. All ceremonially unclean persons must be removed from the vicinity of the camp. There may, perhaps, have been other reasons, in addition to the principle of quarantine, that prompted this command. But quarantine seems the evident reason.
Camp. This would refer to the camp area in the fullest sense, extending to its limits on all sides (chs. 2, 3). The same word isalso translated “tents,” in 2 Chron. 31:2.
Every leper. See on Lev. 13:2 and Additional Note on Lev. 13. The Jews viewed this disease as a mark of God’s displeasure. In some cases it was indeed such a mark, as evidence in the cases of Miriam Num. 12:12, Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27), and Uzziah (2 Kings 15:5).
That hath an issue. See on Lev. 15 This class was not excluded from the outer camp.
Defiled by the dead. This class of persons was shut out only from the inner camp (see Lev. 11:24; 21:1, 11).
The word here translated “dead” is nephesh, rendered in the English Bible as “soul” in many instances (see on Gen. 35:18). It has various meanings, and here refers to a corpse, regarded as ceremonially unclean (see Num. 6:6, 11; 9:6, 7, 10; Lev. 21:11).
The three classes here specified had certain things in common: (1) the duration of uncleanness—seven days after the removal of the cause—and (2) the conception of their being a means of defiling others who came in contact with them.
3. In the midst whereof I dwell. The same expression is used of the Holy Land (ch. 35:34), in admonition not to pollute it by deeds of violence and injustice.
6. A man or woman. The Hebrew words here refer to specific individuals.
Men. From a generic term meaning “mankind.”
Against the Lord. A sin against a fellow man is looked upon as a sin against the person of God, and therefore required a sacrificial offering as well as restitution to the injured person (see Num. 5:7; cf. Lev. 6:2-4). Although it is possible to sin against God without involving injury to a fellow man, it is not possible to sin against man without committing a sin against God.
7. Recompense his trespass. Literally, “return his guilt.” Here the abstract “guilt” is used for the concrete thing that he stole, or whatever he may have realized from its disposal.
With the principal. Literally, “with its head,” that is, in full.
Fifth part. Note a similar compensation in Lev. 6:5; 22:14 (see Lev. 27:11, 27, 31).
8. Kinsman. This is the word go’el, from the verb “to redeem, to act as a kinsman.” It is applied to Christ as the Redeemer (see Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; 78:35; 103:4; Isa. 41:14; 43:14; 47:4; 54:5; 59:20; 60:16). Since an Israelite would usually have a kinsman, it is possible that the man without kin would be a proselyte.
Unto the Lord, even to the priest. Literally, “for Jehovah for the priest.” The priest stood as the personal representative of Jehovah, and the property becomes his (see Lev. 23:20).
The ram of the atonement. The required offering (Lev. 5:15; 6:6; 7:7), pertaining to the priest in Jehovah’s stead.
9. Offering. The word “offering” has the meaning of “that which lifts off,” that is, from a larger amount, and is devoted to a sacred purpose. Jewish teaching is that this is reference to the first fruits (Ex. 23:19), so that they too became the property of the priests (Num. 15:19-21; 31:29, 41, 52; Deut. 12:6, 11). The idea of a contribution, whether in the general sense or for a specific purpose, applies appropriately here. The “offering” becomes the priest’s due (Lev. 7:14, 32, 34).
10. Shall be his. This verse mentions both sources of priestly revenue: dues to Jehovah and gifts to the priests. An individual priest could not claim specific gifts from particular individuals. The giving was the responsibility of the owner, subject to this general admonition and to the principle that whatever Jehovah claimed as His own must come first.
13. No witness. Two witnesses were necessary to secure a conviction (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; Deut. 19:15). The penalty for proved guilt was death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-27). There is every suspicion on the part of the husband at least, but no actual proof.
14. Spirit. From ruach, translated “spirit” in the OT. It occurs 377 times in the Hebrew, and is translated “spirit” 232 times. The dominant idea of this word is “power.” When the queen of Sheba saw the splendors of Solomon, “there was no more spirit in her ” (1 Kings 10:5). When Isaiah speaks of the horses of Egypt as flesh “and not spirit,” he means that they a “and not spirit,” he means that they were weak as compared with God. A man who has control of his spirit is both strong and worthy (Prov. 16:32; 25:28). Here (Num. 5:14)the term indicates an intense impulse or emotion.
15. Tenth part of an ephah. Approximately 2 dry qt. (2.21 l.).
Barley meal. A cheaper kind of flour, a coarse food used only by the very poor (Judges 7:13; John 6:9, 13), and as fodder for animals (1 Kings 4:28). The “fine flour” commanded for other offerings (Eze. 46:14) was not allowed in a case of this kind, where moral corruption and dishonor were the issues. The coarse elements of this oblation were indicative of the coarseness and grossness of the sinful act.
Pour no oil. This was a most unhappy occasion, so oil, a symbol of joy and happiness, was excluded. Oil and frankincense, although included with a meal offering of first fruits, were not allowed with a poor man’s sin offering (Lev. 2:15; 5:11).
Of jealousy. The Hebrew word here is plural in number, “jealousies,” inasmuch as the offense, if the woman was guilty, was against both God and her husband. Also, more than one person was guilty.
Of memorial. A phrase to remind men that God does not condone iniquity, neither does He forget it until it has been confessed (1 Kings 17:18; Eze. 29:16; Hosea 8:13; Jer. 44:21; Ps. 25:7).
16. Before the Lord. That is, to the tabernacle.
17. Holy water. This would be water in the laver that was reserved for the priests’ ablutions Ex. 30:18, 19. Some maintain, however, that it refers to running water (see Num. 19:17; Lev. 14:5). This expression is used nowhere else in the Bible. There is no similarity whatever between this and the so-called holy water provided by certain churches today.
An earthen vessel. The cheapest kind of vessel, to conform to the coarseness of the flour—and the heinousness of the sin. The vessel would probably be smashed after the ceremony, as in the case of the sin offering (Lev. 6:28; cf. 14:5, 50). Some commentators suggest that this implied the broken life of the woman, should she be found guilty.
Dust. The reason for this provision is not clear. Perhaps, being in a sense sacred, it would harm only a guilty person.
18. Uncover the woman’s head. This was a gesture of shame (see Lev. 10:6; 13:45; 21:10).
In her hands. These various acts would have the tendency to break down the woman’s fortitude and cause her to confess, if guilty.
Bitter water. The literal expression in the Hebrew is “waters of bitterness.” Not that the water was of itself bitter of taste, but that for the guilty person there would be bitter results (see Jer. 2:19; 4:18; Eze. 23:48).
19. Instead of thy husband. The Hebrew reads, “under thy husband,” meaning “subject to thy husband.” In Eze. 23:5 it is rendered “when she was mine,” literally, “when she was under me,” and Rom. 7:2, where the word translated “woman” is a compound meaning “under one man,” that is, under his direction as the head of the house.
Be thou free. That is, free from the curse involved, if not guilty.
21. Make thee a curse. When cursing or taking an oath, people would recall her name in their imprecations called down upon offenders, saying, “May Jehovah make you like that woman.”
Thy thigh. Meaning, perhaps, that the woman would not again give birth to a healthy child (see v. 28). She would thus become a bitter disappointment to her husband, unable to build up his house.
23. Blot them out. The written words would be washed off into the water, and so transferred to it.
24. To drink. The woman drank the water after the meal offering (v. 26), but the act is anticipated here.
26. The memorial. As a reminder to Jehovah to prevent the waters of bitterness from doing harm to the woman if she was innocent. The term is a technical one (Lev. 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7).
27. Shall be a curse. She would be an example and a warning to others.
28. Free. That is, declared innocent (see Jer. 2:35), and so suffering no harm.
Shall conceive. A compensation implying divine favor, and therefore highly prized by the Israelites.
31. Bear her iniquity. The basic principle of the whole ordeal was that the outcome lay in God’s hands.
2. Man or woman. We have few records of women Nazirites. They would have been expected to meet conditions similar to those enjoined upon men. If a woman was subject to a father or a husband, either one had the authority to annul her vow (ch. 30:3-5). The fact that the mother of Samson was not to drink wine implies that she may have taken a temporary Nazirite vow (Judges 13:4, 5), In connection with this first use of the word “Nazirite” it should be stated that the spelling here given is employed for two reasons: It is a better transliteration of the Hebrew; it protects against a popular misunderstanding of the term as signifying an inhabitant of Nazareth. However, in quotations from Scripture, the spelling there given, is employed.
To vow a vow. Compare with Num. 15:3, 8; Lev. 22:21; 27:2.
Nazarite. The Hebrew root means “to separate,” “to consecrate,” “to dedicate” in a religious or ceremonial sense. The noun nazir means “consecration,” “crown” (as a sign of consecration), and refers also to the person consecrated. The fuller expression, “Nazarite unto God” Judges 13:5, 7, means one fully dedicated to God.
3. Wine. From a word for grape wine, a common drink (Gen. 14:18; 27:25; Judges 19:19; 2 Sam. 16:2; Amos 5:11; 9:14; etc.).
Strong drink. Intoxicating drinks in general; used of drinks made from other materials than grapes. The Hebrew root means “to become intoxicated,” and is used metaphorically of destruction (Isa. 49:26). Wine and strong drinks were forbidden priests on duty (Lev. 10:9), and to the Nazirites (see Judges 13:4, 7, 14). They were held to be particularly bad for princes and others in responsible positions (Prov. 31:4), and all others were cautioned as to their use (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-33; Hab. 2:15).
Vinegar. A sour product of the manufacture of the inferior grades of wine of acid content. It was diluted with water by the common people and used as an inexpensive drink.
Liquor of grapes. “Juice of grapes” (RSV). It may refer to any drink made from fresh grapes.
Kernels. The words “kernels” and “husk” are not found elsewhere in the OT, and their meaning is uncertain. The RSV renders them “seeds” and “skins.”
5. No razor. The best-known example of unshorn hair is that of Samson (Judges 13:5; cf. Num. 8:7). This injunction is found in all references to Nazirites, for the long locks were an outward mark of dedication to God (see Lev. 21:5; Judges 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam. 1:11).
The days be fulfilled. See Acts 21:24, 26.
Locks of the hair. The locks of hair would clearly mark the consecrated Nazirite (see Judges 16:17).
6. No dead body. The Nazirite was forbidden to touch a dead body, to be in a house with a dead person, or to accompany the corpse to the grave (ch. 19:11-16). Similarly, the high priest was forbidden to come into contact with a dead body (Lev. 21:11). The literal expression here is “the soul of the dead” (see on Num. 5:2 and on Gen. 35:18). As with other injunctions, Samson did not observe this one (Judges 14:19; 15:8).
7. For his father. The same command was applied to the high priest (Lev. 21:11), though not to the priests who assisted him (Lev. 21:1, 2).
The consecration. This refers to his unshorn locks as a royal crown. This very word is translated “crown” in Ex. 29:6; 39:30; Lev. 8:9; 21:12; 2 Sam. 1:10; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11; Ps. 89:39; 132:18; Prov. 27:24; Zech. 9:16.
9. Defiled. The defilement was caused by the dead body, and therefore not intentional on the part of the Nazirite. Even unintentional or “hidden” sin was looked upon as serious (Ps. 19:12; 90:8).
Shave. As the hair had become defiled, it was necessary to dispose of it. How this was to be done is not mentioned. Ancient practice among other peoples was to bury defiled objects.
His cleansing. This involved sprinklingwith water that contained the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19).
10. Two turtles. That is, turtledoves; or else two young pigeons. Those defiled by uncleanness offered the same inexpensive offerings as a substitute for more expensive ones (Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 15:14, 29). A non-Nazirite defiled by contact with a dead body was not required to make an offering (Num. 19:19).
11. Sin offering.The purpose of this sacrifice was the removal of the defilement. It was offered at the consecration of priests (Ex. 29:1, 14; Lev. 8:2, 14), of the Levites (Num. 8:8, 12), also for ceremonial defilement as here (Lev. 12:6, 8; 14:19; 15:15), and for the consecration of objects (Ex. 29:36; Lev. 8:14).
Burnt offering. Dedication is again declared by this offering.
Sinned. That is, he contracted a legal uncleanness, and thereby sinned against God in that he did not take adequate precautions against coming into contact with a corpse. Compare with Christ’s emphasis on the importance of cleanness of heart (Mark 7:18-23).
Hallow his head. He again resumes his Nazirite status, with his vows reiterated, after shaving his head and reconsecrating his hair.
12. Consecrate. Having recovered his cleanness, he was required to begin again the whole period of his Nazirite vow.
A lamb. The Hebrew reads, “He shall bring a male lamb, the son of a year, for a guilt offering.” The word translated “trespass offering” always implies guilt. To make this offering was to acknowledge guilt (cf. Lev. 5:15).
Shall be lost. The days he had already kept his Nazirite vow were canceled by the defilement.
13. Days of his separation. These may have been of varying periods. However, the examples of Nazirites we have in the Bible are in each case lifelong: Samson (Judges 13:5), Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).
14. Offer his offering. On the completion of the period of his vow he would return to his ordinary way of life, hence the need of a sin offering. The sin offering was normally offered before the burnt offering. The sin offering was for any omissions of which he may have been guilty during the days of his vow.
Peace offerings. The Hebrew word here is of uncertain origin, and may be connected with the word “peace,” or with another meaning “to make restitution.” It is an offering for happy occasions, an offering of thankfulness, with the worshiper eating part of the sacrifice.
15. Meat offering. That is, the cereal offering of fine flour, and the libations, such as were used with the burnt offering and peace offerings of v. 14; the sin offering did not require either meal or drink offering.
16. Shall bring. The priest shall bring the offerings to the altar.
18. At the door. The shaving was done beside the slain peace offering (cf. Lev. 3:2), and the hair cast into the fire of the sacrifice on the altar that stood before the door of the tabernacle (Ex. 40:6). The hair had been dedicated to Jehovah; therefore it was destroyed, to eliminate any danger of defilement.
19. Sodden shoulder. The boiled shoulder had been held in readiness.
Upon the hands. The Hebrew reads, “upon the upturned palms” of the Nazirite (see Ex. 29:24; Lev. 8:27).
20. Wave them. The priest waved and received for himself a larger portion of the offering of the Nazirite than he did of any other offering, for the “sodden shoulder” is in addition to the right shoulder (or right thigh) that was already assigned to him (see Lev. 7:30-33).
Holy for the priest. This alludes to the boiled shoulder, the extra portion mentioned in v. 19. The Nazirite presumably ate of the sacrificial meal after he was discharged by the priest.
May drink wine. Probably permissive, referring to the future; the man was now free to live as other men lived. The word for “wine” is the same as in v. 3.
21. Beside that. There was no law to prohibit the Nazirite bringing additional burnt offerings and peace offerings if his means allowed; but only one sin offering was admissible.
23. Saying unto them. This suggests that the blessing was pronounced in the presenceof the entire congregation (see Lev. 9:22; Deut. 21:5).
24. Bless thee, and keep thee. A double benediction for long life and happiness, and protection from loss and sin.
25. Face shine. The word means “to illuminate, to envelop in glory” (see 1 Sam. 14:29; Ezra 9:8; Prov. 4:18; Isa. 60:19).
Be gracious. This suggests every kind of graciousness and tender consideration. No divine attribute is more precious to sinful man than the grace of God.
26. Lift up his countenance. Compare Ps. 4:6. If the face of Jehovah is hidden, then despair settles upon man (Deut. 31:17, 18; Job 13:24). If His face is turned against man, then death and destruction befall him (Lev. 17:10; Ps. 30:7; 34:16; 44:24, 25; 104:29).
Peace. Compare Isa. 26:3. The Hebrew word signifies “oneness,” “completeness,” and “perfection.”
27. Put my name. The name of God was revealed by Him personally (Ex. 3:13-15; 6:3), and is of inexpressible sanctity (Ex. 20:7; 33:19; 34:6, 7).
The Hebrew word “name” has many meanings that are extremely helpful: see “for a name,” or “memorial” (Isa. 55:13). Other texts show the connection between God’s name and His place of worship (Ex. 20:24; Jer. 7:10); also, His revealed character (Amos 9:6). The fundamental lesson of the expression “put my name upon the children of Israel” is in their being God’s private possession, peculiarly His (see on Ex. 19:5) and intimately associated with Him (see Deut. 28:10; Jer. 14:9).
1. On the day. According to Ex. 40:17, 18, This would be the first day of the first month of the second year of wandering. It is the day of the completion of the tabernacle and the anointing of the altar (see vs. 1, 10, 84, 88). The narrative now returns to the first day of the second year, the month preceding the numbering of the armies.
Fully set up. Moses personally supervised the erection of the tabernacle (Ex. 40:18).
Anointed it. See Ex. 40:9; Lev. 8:10, 11.
2. The princes of Israel. This is equivalent to “the chief of the congregation” (chs. 1:5, 16; 4:34).
3. Covered wagons. Needed for the heavy parts of the tabernacle, and covered to provide adequate protection from the weather.
5. Take it of them. The wagons and oxen were a voluntary offering (v. 3) that must have been received gratefully by the Levites for the work of transportation. Moses apparently did not accept the offer until he was specifically authorized by the Lord to do so.
7. According to their service. The Gershonites transported less than the Merarites (v. 8, see ch. 4:24-26, 31-33).
9. Sons of Kohath. The Kohathites received no wagons, for they had no responsibility for the fabric for the tabernacle itself. Their charge was the ark, the table of the shewbread, etc. These things were carried on staves on their shoulders (ch. 4:15).
10. Offered for dedicating. That is, presented for holy service before being brought to the altar. The offering of objects (vs. 13-17, etc.) for the service of the altar was in a special sense a new dedication of the altar itself. For the consecration of the altar see Ex. 29:37; Lev. 8:10, 15.
12. The tribe of Judah. Nahshon, representing his tribe, gave a contribution on the first day. He had been appointed to help Moses in the census and to be the leader of Judah (chs. 1:7; 2:3).
13. Charger.Translated “dishes” (RSV, “plates”) in Ex. 25:29; 37:16.
Bowl. Translated “basons” in Ex. 27:3 and other places.
14. One spoon. The Hebrew word is the one usually used for the palm of the hand. The reference here is to a container resembling a dish.
18. Prince of Issachar. The offering of Nethaneel and that of the other princes of the same rank as Nahshon are described in similar terms.
48. Seventh day. This may or may not have been the seventh-day Sabbath. The words refer primarily to the seventh day of the consecration of the altar. At least one of the days of the offerings in dedication must have been the Sabbath, if they were taken consecutively—which seems to have been the case.
84. It was anointed. The dedication offerings of the princes were presented over a period of 12 days.
89. He heard the voice. Jehovah spoke with Moses audibly, even as He had with Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 3:9) and with Abram at the door of his tent (Gen. 17:1). Only Moses was allowed in the tabernacle at this time to hear God’s message. Apparently even Aaron was excluded (see Ex. 25:22; 40:33, 34; Lev. 16:2).
2. Lightest the lamps. Literally, “set up the lamps.”
The candlestick. The seven lamps of the candlestick, as a unit, illuminated the sanctuary.
3. Aaron did so. (See Ex. 27:21; 30:8; Lev. 24:3, 2; 2 Chron. 13:11).
4. Beaten work. Probably identical with the type of hammered work, repoussé, that has been common throughout the East from very ancient times (see Ex. 25:18, 31, 36; 37:7, 17-22). These words are form from a Hebrew term translated “of a whole piece” in Num. 10:2.
6. Cleanse them. This ritual was to be performed for the Levites before they entered upon their solemn duties.
7. Water of purifying. Literally, “water of transgression,” that is, water that washes away transgression. This expression is not found elsewhere in the Bible. What was added to the water we are not told. Compare “waters of bitterness” and “water of impurity” (see on ch. 19:9, 18, 19), and the water for cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:4-7).
Shave. Literally, “cause a razor to pass over.” Compare this case with that of the Nazirite (ch. 6:9), the leper (Lev. 14:8), and the captive woman (Deut. 21:12).
10. Put their hands. This was a representative act. Some commentators think it was perhaps carried out by the princes, transferring to the Levites the obligations of the congregation in connection with the tabernacle services. The Levites were given to God instead of the first-born; and as the whole family was sanctified through the first-born, so the whole congregation benefited.
11. Offer the Levites. This command is repeated three times (vs. 11, 13, 15). The Levites were a living offering, for service (see Rom. 12:1).
16. Wholly given unto me. See on ch. 3:9.
Instead of the firstborn. Who belonged to God (vs. 17, 18; cf. ch. 3:12, 13).
19. To make an atonement. Literally, “to make a covering,” the same root word from which comes the word translated “mercy seat.” By discharging these services the Levites made atonement for the children of Israel.
Plague. Often a visitation for disobedience (Ex. 12:13; 30:12; Joshua 22:17). The Levites came between God and the congregation, thus providing a “cover” (atonement) for them.
21. Were purified. Literally, “unsinned,” referring to the personal preparation required and not to the ceremonial sprinkling (v. 7).
24. Twenty and five. A Levite between the ages of 25 and 50 years was to accept the responsibilities of the services of the tabernacle. At the age of 50 years he was freed from such duties. There remained to him the privilege of doing minor services in the sanctuary on a voluntary basis, as a mark of honor. He was not arbitrarily retired contrary to his own wishes.
1. First month. The exact day is not given, but it is the month in which the tabernacle was set up, the month preceding the census.
Second year. The second counted inclusively. The first was the year in which the Exodus took place (see pp. 182, 187).
2. Passover. Evidently the first after the giving of the law; the problem of ritual uncleanness to which these remarks are prefatory seems to be new (vs. 6-8).
3. At even. Literally, “between the evenings.” The precise meaning of this phrase is difficult to determine (see on Ex. 12:6).The same expression is found also in (Ex. 16:12; 29:39, 41; 30:8; Num. 28:4).
Rites. See (Ex. 12:3-28, 42-49; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7).
6. By the dead body. Hence, unclean (ch. 19:11). As in chs. 5:2; 6:11, the Hebrew word here rendered as “dead body” is nephesh, “soul.”
Could not keep. An unclean person who partook of a sacrificial feast was to be “cut off” from his people (Lev. 7:20). On “cut off” see on (Ex. 12:15).
8. I will hear. Moses did not offer any solution without seeking divine guidance (Num. 15:34; 27:5; Lev. 24:12).
10. Posterity. This is a provision for future generations.
11. Fourteenth day. A month was given for preparation for observing the Passover.
12. Nor break any bone. See Ex. 12:46; cf. Ps. 34:20; John 19:36.
13. Be curt off. See on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15.
14. Stranger. Literally, “sojourner,” one who had taken up residence among the Hebrews. A complete stranger, a foreigner (from a different Hebrew word), would not have been allowed to eat of the Passover (Ex. 12:45, 48).
15. Tent of the testimony. The Hebrew expression thus rendered occurs only here and, as “tabernacle of witness,” in (Num. 17:7, 8; 18:2; 2 Chron. 24:6). The usual phrase is “tabernacle of the congregation” (KJV) or “tent of meeting” (RSV).
The testimony. That is, the two tables of stone written by the finger of God and placed within the ark. This moral law, the Decalogue, was the foundation stone upon which Judaism was based. The cloud covered that part of the sanctuary containing the ark, in which rested the holy law, the Ten Commandments.
Appearance of fire. In Gen. 15:17 God is represented under a similar figure.
18. Commandment of the Lord. Literally, “at the mouth of Jehovah.” We are not told whether an oral command was spoken. In any case, the removal of the cloud would announce the time for breaking camp.
22. Or a year. The word translated “year” is literally “days,” the plural noun to suggest an indefinite period. The same Hebrew word is translated differently in Gen. 4:3; 40:4. See also Lev. 25:29, where the expression “a full year” is from the same word, “days.”
The story of the dependence of the church upon God’s personal guidance is most appealing. God chose the route, the resting places, and the length of stay at each. The visible sign of His presence in the desert must have been most heartening, providing as it did a strong incentive to faith. For lessons on the cloud see Ex. 13:21; 14:19, 20, 24; Lev. 16:2; Neh. 9:19.
2. Trumpets of silver. There are three OT Hebrew words translated “trumpet.” One is the ram’s horn used at Sinai (Ex. 19:13) and at Jericho (Joshua 6:5). There was the trumpet used at secular services; then there was the one here called a “clarion” by some writers. It was a straight, slender tube with a flaring mouth.
3. With them. The sounding of both trumpets was a summons to the entire camp. For a significant blowing of the trumpets, refer to Joel 2:15.
5. Blow an alarm. The word for “alarm” is translated “shouting” in Jer. 20:16 and Amos 1:14.
8. The priests. As the trumpets were used for religious duties, and sounded in harmony with God’s expressed desires, it was but natural to place the instruments in the custody of the priests and to restrict the blowing of the instruments to them.
9. In your land. The reference is to the Holy Land, when their wanderings would have ceased and the practical use for which the trumpets were made would be ended.
10. Day of your gladness. This would mean any occasion of national thanksgiving (see 2 Chron. 5:12, 13; 7:6; 29:27; Esther 9:19; John 10:22).
In your solemn days. Literally, “on your appointed gatherings,” meaning the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks, Feast of the Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of the Tabernacles (Lev. 23).
Beginnings of your months. That is, the first day of each month, or with every new moon (see article on the Jewish calendar in Vol. II).
11. On the twentieth day. This was the Israelites’ first journey from the Wilderness of Sinai, where they had camped for almost a year (see Ex. 16:1; 19:1).
Second year. One year and a little over one month since the beginning of the Exodus (see p. 187).
The cloud was taken up. The cloud had now rested over the tabernacle 1 month and 19 days (Ex. 40:17, 34).
12. Wilderness of Paran. The precise limits of this wilderness have not been determined. In a general way, it was bounded by the Gulf of ‘Aqaba on the east, the Gulf of Suez on the west, and the mountains of Sinai on the south. It was Ishmael’s dwelling place (Gen. 21:21; cf. Gen. 14:6; Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3).
14. Nahshon. The prince in each case (vs. 14-27) was the appointed leader of his tribe (ch. 1:4-16), and issued all orders when on the march.
21. The sanctuary. This does not refer to the tabernacle, or tent, which was carried by the Gershonites and the Merarites, but to the holy things—the ark, etc.—carried on the shoulders of the Kohathites (see ch. 4:4, 15).
25. The rereward. That is, rearward, or rear guard, literally, “the collector.” Naphtali, part of the division under Dan, was actually in the very rear. The word is applied to God as protector in Isa. 52:12; 58:8.
29. Hobab. This verse does not make it clear whether Hobab or Raguel was Moses’ father-in-law, for the word means merely an “in-law” of any sort. The context must determine each case. But Raguel (or Reuel) was the father-in-law (Ex. 2:16-21); hence his son Hobab was Moses’ brother-in-law (see PP 628).
31. Thou knowest how. As a desert dweller Hobab would be well acquainted with its signs and ways and know where to look for water.
32. If thou go with us. Presumably Hobab finally consented to accompany them, for the children of Hobab dwelt among the children of Judah (Judges 1:16; 4:11).
33. Ark of the covenant. That is, of the Ten Commandments (Num. 14:44; Deut. 10:8; 31:9, 25; Joshua 4:7, 18; 6:8). A covenant is an argument. The covenant between God and Israel was the agreement into which both entered, by which they were to be His people, to obey Him and to become His representatives before the world, and by which He on His part would bless them and be their God (see on Ex. 19:5 and 24:7). It was upon the basis of their voluntary choice to accept the role of being God’s chosen people that He gave them the Ten Commandments, which they promised to obey as their part of the agreement (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7). Appropriately, the Ten Commandments, written by the hand of God upon two tables of stone,came to be called the “covenant” (Deut. 4:13), for they constituted a written copy of the conditions on which the covenant was based. The ark itself, containing the Ten Commandments, therefore, became known as the “ark of the covenant” (see on Ex. 25:16 and Num. 1:50).
35. Moses said. The setting out of the children of Israel on their march to the Holy Land was a demonstration of faith and hope. Upon Moses lay the greatest burden. Verses 35 and 36 record his morning prayer for a good day’s journey, and his evening prayer for rest and protection. The apostle Paul speaks of Israel’s being “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2).
1. The people complained. Literally, they “were as murmurers of evil.” That is, evil in the sense of misfortune, unhappiness. The wilderness probably appeared to them to be a deathtrap. Badly frightened by their own imagination, they began to predict all kinds of evils that would befall them there.
Uttermost parts. The mixed multitudes (see on v. 4) were on the fringes of the camp, for the arrangement by tribes (ch. 2) left them no other place.
2. Moses prayed. Moses was a great man of prayer, ever ready to intercede for others (see chs. 12:13; 14:13-19; 16:22).
3. Taberah. This place is mentioned but once more (Deut. 9:22). The site has never been identified. The name comes from a verb meaning “to burn,” “to consume,” “to exterminate.”
4. The mixt multitude. From the Heb. ha’saphsuph, a repeating form from the verb ’asaph, “to collect.” The word “riff-raff” has been suggested as an appropriate modern translation. For the identity of these people see on Ex. 12:38 (see also Deut. 29:11; Joshua 8:35).
Fell a lusting. Literally, “had a great craving” (see Ps. 106:14; 78:29).
Israel also wept. This became almost a habit with the Israelites in moments of petulant displeasure (Num. 14:1; Deut. 1:45; 34:8; Judges 2:4; 20:23, 26; 21:2).
Flesh to eat. When the Israelites came out of Egypt they were rich in cattle (Ex. 12:32, 38; 17:3; 34:3; Num. 32:1). But presumably not all the Israelites had large flocks and herds, and evidently the number they had was not sufficient to provide for a regular flesh diet for all, even if that had been the best thing for them.
5. We remember. Compare Ex. 16:3.
The fish. Common and very cheap in Egypt (Ex. 7:21; Isa. 19:8).
Cucumbers. Refreshing in the hot climates (Isa. 1:8). Such things were, of course, not available in the wilderness.
Melons. Watermelons, a favorite article of food in hot, dry countries. The fish and vegetables mentioned in this verse were the food of the poorer classes in Egypt even as they are today.
6. Our soul is dried away. For the lack of fruit and vegetables that had a large water content, and are particularly refreshing in a hot, dry climate.
Manna. The Hebrew reads: “There is nothing at all for our eyes to fall upon except this manna.” Jesus used the manna as a symbol of the spiritual food that is given to us freely from heaven (John 6:30-35, 41-58). The Christian overcomer is promised “the hidden manna” (Rev. 2:17).
7. Coriander seed. Round in shape, light in color (Ex. 16:14), as readily seen as is the bdellium gum (Gen. 2:12) in the light of the desert sun.
8. As the taste. That is, it tasted fresh and appetizing as food newly baked or fried in good oil. It also tasted like wafers made with honey (Ex. 16:31).
9. When the dew fell. The manna fell upon the earth fresh and cool with the fallen dew (see Ps. 78:23-25).
10. Every man. The man of the East makes it a habit to inform the world at large of his grief and mourning. In this instance there is every appearance of a prearranged plan for concerted action, each family crying out aloud, and at the door of their tent.
11. Afflicted thy servant. Moses refers to his appointment as leader of the people, who now exaggerated their trials and so quickly forgot their blessings (see Ex. 33:1-3).
12. As a nursing father. Moses speaks of Jehovah as the Begetter of the children of Israel (Deut. 32:18), His problem children (Hosea 11:1-3), Compare this verse with other expressions of divine care and solicitude (Deut. 1:31; Isa. 40:11; 46:3; Hosea 11:3, 4).
13. Whence. Compare this with the experience of the disciples recorded in Matt. 15:33; Mark 8:4.
14. I am not able. In reality Moses was as unreasonable as the people, for God never left Moses alone nor expected him to supply the camp with food.
15. Kill me. The meaning is “Kill me and be done with it” (see Ex. 32:32; 1 Kings 19:4).
16. Seventy men. These elders (see Ex. 24:1, 9) were leading men of various families (Ex. 12:21; cf. 1 Sam. 4:3; 8:4; 2 Sam. 17:15).
Officers. This is the word used of the Israelite foremen who worked under the Egyptian overseers (Ex. 5:15). The original meaning of the word is “arranger,” “organizer,” “secretary.”
17. Of the spirit. Compare this with the transfer of “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15) to Elisha. Here the gifts and activities of the Holy Spirit are referred to in their energizing of the spirit of man to carry through the plans of God.
18 Sanctify yourselves. A word used with reference to ceremonial cleanliness through ablutions and abstentions (see ch. 19:10, 14) and as a preparation for sacrifice (Gen. 35:2). The same word is translated “prepare,” as if for slaughter, in Jer. 12:3. Some Jewish commentators would give that meaning to it here. In reality the word of itself is neutral, and may mean to prepare for either good or evil.
20. Despised. The original word has the sense of “to reject” (Jer. 6:19; 7:29; 8:9; Hosea 4:6).
25. In a cloud. The same word means “a cloud mass.” It is used of such varying circumstances as seen in Gen. 9:13; Ex. 13:21, 22;24:18; Eze. 8:11; 30:3; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15.
26. That were written. That is, listed among the 70, but not as yet joined to them.
29. Spirit. As God’s agent (Gen. 1:2; Judges 3:10; Isa. 11:2; Joel 2:28).
31. A wind. Compare the use of the wind by God in Gen. 8:1; Ex. 10:13, 19; 14:21.
Brought quails. The verb translated “brought” means “to cut off,” “to sever,” “to separate.” The idea apparently is that Jehovah used the wind to separate the flock from their resting place on the seashore, and bring them to camp.
Two cubits. About 31/2 ft. This was an easy height at which to catch the birds.
32. Ten homers. Equal to approximately 62 bu.
Spread. Presumably to dry and cure them.
33. Plague. Throughout the book of Numbers various plagues are the result of disobedience and rebellion (see chs. 16:47; 25:9).
34. Kibroth-hattaavah. This place cannot be accurately identified. The meaning is “the graves of their lusting.”
1. Miriam and Aaron. Miriam’s name is given first, since she was the leader in the murmuring.
Spake. The verb is feminine, singular number, pointing to Miriam as the instigator. “She spake.”
Ethiopian woman. Literally, a “Cushite woman” (see on Gen. 10:6). Zipporah’s father was actually a Midianite (Ex. 2:16-19; 3:1), and thus a descendant of Abraham (Gen. 25:1, 2 PP 383). Upon rejoining Moses at Mt. Sinai (see on Ex. 4:25 and 18:2), Zipporah had observed the heavy burdens borne by her husband and expressed to Jethro her fears for his well-being. Thereupon Jethro counseled Moses to select others to share the responsibilities of administration with him. When Moses acted upon this counsel without first consulting Miriam and Aaron, they became jealous of him and blamed Zipporah for what they considered Moses’ neglect of them (see PP 383). The fact that Zipporah was a Midianite, though a worshiper of the true God, was used by Miriam and Aaron merely as an excuse for rebelling against the authority of Moses. He did not violate the principle of nonmarriage with the heathen when he took her to wife, as they apparently claimed.
2. Spoken only by Moses. The brother and sister here claim equality with Moses, ignoring the fact that God had placed him in a unique position of authority (see Ex. 4:10-16; Deut. 34:10).
The Lord heard. He hears all complaints against His servants (see Num. 11:1; 2 Kings 19:4; Mal. 3:16).
3. Meek. From a root meaning “humble,” “submissive,” “lowly.” The same word is rendered variously, as “poor” (Job 24:4), “humble” (Ps. 9:12), and “lowly” (Prov. 3:34; 16:19). The trait of character here described as meekness is essential to leadership in the cause of God. Moses was not naturally meek (Ex. 2:11-14); that trait came to him as the result of 40 years spent in the hard school of the wilderness of Midian. Only a meek man knows how to be submissive to God and to his subordinates and at the same time be a courageous and dynamic leader. There is no place in the work of the Lord for a leader who conceives it to be his privilege to domineer over his fellow workers and dictate to them.
6. In a vision. God has ever revealed His will to His servants the prophets through visions and dreams, and promises to continue doing so (Joel 2:28; Amos 3:7). On the basis of Joel 2:28 it has been suggested that “visions” are generally accorded to younger men and women, and “dreams” to those who are older. An “open vision” (1 Sam. 3:1) is a physically exhausting ordeal (see Dan. 10:8-11, 16-19). Various of the prophets speak of experiences similar to that of Daniel. Inspired dreams seem to draw far less on the physical resources of the individual to whom they are accorded.
7. My servant Moses. Similarly described in Ex. 14:31; Deut. 34:5. The term is also used of others (Gen. 26:24; Job 1:8). Compare the reference to these words in Heb. 3:5.
Mine house. Here refers to the people of God (see Heb. 3:2, 5).
8. Mouth to mouth. That is, directly, with no intermediary. This expression is similar to “face to face” in Ex. 33:11; Deut. 34:10.
Dark speeches. Sometimes translated “riddles” (Eze. 17:2).
The similitude of the Lord. Not the actual being of God but some visible form that a man could see and appreciate. The word here rendered “similitude” is sometimes translated “likeness” (Deut. 4:15, 16, 23, 25; Ps. 17:15; Isa. 40:18; cf. John 1:18 and 1 Tim. 6:16).
Speak against my servant. The fundamental mistake of Miriam was one of disrespect for, and rebellion against, lawfully constituted authority—in this case, appointed by God Himself. Errors in judgment upon the part of God’s leaders today provide no excuse for withholding fromthem one’s loyal support. In spite of the fact that Saul sought his life, David remained loyal, in word and in deed, to him as king, saying, “The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 6:11). Though condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Christ commanded His disciples to cooperate with them as the appointed leaders of the nation (Matt. 23:3). When a person is tempted to inquire concerning some leader in the church, “What shall this man do?” the Lord replies today as He did to Peter, “What is that to thee? follow thou me” (John 21:21, 22, Paul’s counsel is explicit. “Dearly beloved,” he says, “avenge not yourselves” (Rom. 12:19), and then quotes Scripture, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Every true disciple of the Master today will be loyal to those in authority in the church, even when it may seem that they have erred in judgment (1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 3:1).
10. Leprous, white as snow. Compare with Ex. 4:6; 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chron. 26:19-21. Aaron received no physical punishment. Evidently the whole outcry was worked up by Miriam, who now received her just deserts.
11. Lay not the sin. In Zech. 14:19 the same Hebrew word is translated “punishment,” since it refers to both sin and its punishment.
12. As one dead. That is, condemned to die. She was shut away from others like a criminal.
14. Spit in her face. Among Eastern peoples spittle is supposed to have both evil and good effects (see Deut. 25:9; Job 30:10; Mark 7:33; 8:23). Among certain people even today spittle is supposed to be the means of transferring superhuman powers.
After that. The words of v. 14, that Miriam might return a week from the time leprosy struck her, imply that she was healed immediately (see v. 13), and began the ritual of purification immediately (see Lev. 13:4).
1. The Lord spake. It is plain from Deut. 1:22 that God here complies with a request made originally by the people.
2. Canaan. Promised to Abraham (Gen. 17:8), to Jacob (Gen. 48:3, 4; Ps. 105:10, 11), and to Moses (Ex. 6:4). God warned the Israelites to obey His laws and not defile the land lest they, like the earlier inhabitants, be cast out of it (Lev. 18:3, 24-28; cf. Eze. 16:29).
3. The commandment. This was given to Moses in “the time of the firstripe grapes” (v. 20), which would date this incident in about the fifth month of the second year after Israel left Egypt.
From the wilderness of Paran. That is, from Kadesh-barnea (Num. 32:8; Deut. 1:19-22; 9:23; Joshua 14:7).
Heads. The rulers of hundreds and thousands (Ex. 18:25), and princes of the tribes (Num. 1:16), were so called. But these were evidently tribal “heads” of a lower category.
16. Jehoshua. This name may have been given to Oshea of the tribe of Ephraim (v. 8) shortly after the children of Israelleft Egypt; otherwise, it is used by anticipation in Ex. 17:9. The name Oshea means “salvation,” and Joshua, and abbreviated form of Jehoshua, “Jehovah is salvation.” Bible names are usually significant (see Rev. 2:13, 17; 3:12; 14:1; 19:12, 13, 16; 21:12, 14; 22:4).
17. Southward. Literally, “into the Negeb,” the south country of Palestine (see on Gen. 12:9). The spies actually went northward from Kadesh to reach the “south” country. This word, from a root meaning “dry” or “parched,” is generally applied to the desert country on the southern border of Palestine. This was a transition area between the southern desert and more arable land to the north, and therefore good for cattle grazing. This area is known by the same name today. In view of the fact that the Negeb lay to the south of Palestine, the word came to be the usual Hebrew term for “south,” as it is commonly translated in the KJV.
The mountain. The hill country of central Palestine (see on v. 29).
20. Fat. That is, productive (see Neh. 9:25, 35).
21. Wilderness of Zin. This should not be confused with the Wilderness of Sin, near Mt. Sinai (Ex. 16:1). Kadesh was situated in the Wilderness of Zin (Num. 20:1; 27:14; 33:36; 34:3, 4; Deut. 32:51; Joshua 15:1, 3), which was either included in or merged into the Wilderness of Paran (see ch. 13:3).
Unto Rehob. This could have been either the Rehob near the Sea of Galilee, or another, farther north, near the Orontes River.
22. By the south. Into the Negeb (see v. 17).
Hebron. A city about 20 mi. south of Jerusalem (Judges 1:10).
Children of Anak. The name is thought by some to mean “the children of the neck,” and so to infer that they were a long-necked people. The root word is translated “chain,” that is, a chain for the neck (Judges 8:26; Prov. 1:9; S. of Sol. 4:9). The inference is that these people around Hebron were tall, wiry men (see Deut. 1:28; 9:2).
23. Brook of Eshcol. ’Eshcol means “cluster.” The same word appears in Gen. 40:10; Deut. 32:32; Isa. 65:8; Micah 7:1.
27. Milk and honey. A general term of plenty (see on Ex. 3:8; cf. 13:5; 33:3). Palestine was then far less dry and bare than it is today (see on Gen. 12:6).
28. Nevertheless. The word here translated “nevertheless” is one that suggests something impossible to man. Its use here implies their lack of faith and reveals their sin. Had they merely stated the facts of the situation, they would have done all that was required of them, but in giving this word they interposed their private opinion that the task ahead was more than the strength of Israel could accomplish.
29. The Amalekites. Descendants of Esau (see on Gen. 36:12); they were a nomadic tribe of the desert country to the south of Palestine. For their first attack on Israel, see Ex. 17:8-16.
Hittites. Subjects of a powerful empire (see on Gen. 10:15).
Jebusites. A relatively unimportant people in the vicinity of Jerusalem, later conquered by David (2 Sam. 5:6; see on Gen. 10:16).
Amorites. Remnants of a formerly powerful people. They were encountered in the hill country spoken of in Deut. 1:19, 44, and in other places (see on Gen. 10:16).
By the sea. That is, by the Mediterranean.
The coast of Jordan. Along, or literally, “by the hand of” the Jordan (see ch. 2:17).
30. Caleb. Perhaps Joshua was more of a warrior than a public speaker (see ch. 14:6).
32. An evil report. The message given was most disheartening, though not necessarily false so far as the facts were concerned. The word translated “brought up” signifies “to invent,” to “spread around.” Appearances no doubt seemed to justify the evil report. From a human point of view the conquest of Canaan may have seemed impossible. But God had promised the land to them and commanded them to enter in and subdue it. Their failure to do so at this time reflected doubt as to the power of God to give it to them. Paul’s eloquent plea for faith refers to the sad experience in Kadesh-barnea as a lesson fraught with meaning for Christians (Heb. 3:8 to 4:16).
Eateth up the inhabitants. The meaning of the expression thus translated is not clear. It can scarcely refer to the poverty of the land, since it had just been described as flowing with milk and honey (v. 27). It was a contradiction of theirreport that Canaan was a fertile land (v. 27). Reference to the superior physique of the giants would also seem to give the lie to their report.
Men of a great stature. Amos 2:9 describes the Amorites as tall like cedars and strong as oaks.
33. Giants. The word translated “giants” could be from the verb “to fall.” The same word is used in Gen. 6:4. This may refer to men who fall by the sword, and so refer to the land eating up the inhabitants (v. 32), or, it may mean men whose giant stature causes the hearts of others to fall through fear (see on Gen. 6:4). The related verb is used to express violent death (1 Sam. 4:10; 14:13).
As grasshoppers. In Isa. 40:22 the same expression is used of men in the sight of God. Such word pictures are common in Semitic languages (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; 1 Kings 20:27).
1. The people wept. As the spies repeated their doubts to the princes of their respective tribes, the evil report spread throughout the camp.
2. Murmured. One can imagine the wild charges that would be raised against Moses and Aaron and the agitation to elect other leaders who would guide them back to Egypt (v. 4).
4. A captain. They went so far as to appoint a leader to replace Moses (Neh. 9:17).
5. Fell on their faces. Moses and Aaron prostrated themselves in despair at the feet of the entire congregation, yet with their thoughts directed toward God.
6. Rent their clothes. Tearing the garments was an ancient method of expressing profound grief (Gen. 37:29, 34; Job 1:20; cf. Joel 2:13).
8. Delight in us. An expression of God’s favor, found in 2 Sam. 22:20, of David; in 1 Kings 10:9, of Solomon; and in Isa. 62:4, of the church.
9. They are bread for us. That is, they will be easy to conquer (see Num. 13:32; 24:8; Deut. 7:16; Ps. 14:4; Jer. 10:25). This expression displayed great faith in God’s ability and willingness to carry out His promises.
Their defence. Literally, “their shadow.” Joshua and Caleb were probably thinking of the cloud of God above the camp of Israel for their guidance and protection, and thereby suggesting the inability of the gods of the heathen to give protection.
10. Glory of the Lord. The glory that appeared on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24:16, 17) and filled the tabernacle at its dedication (Ex. 40:34, 35). The appearance of the holy Shekinah no doubt deterred the people from stoning the two spies.
11. Ere they believe me. Throughout their history the Jews have laid great stress on their descent from Abraham, yet they consistently failed in the very thing for which he was honored of God (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:7, 9). This lack of faith is what kept them from entering into God’s rest (Heb. 3:19; 4:11).
All the signs. Despite lack of faith in much of the modern world, “signs” in their highest form are a kind of evidence intended to confirm the words of God (see Ex. 14:31; John 12:37).
12. Pestilence. The word denotes a plague or pestilence in general, on both man and beast.
A greater nation. Moses (see Ex. 32:10) would thus become a second Abraham, so realizing all that had been promised to that patriarch (Gen. 12:2; 18:18; Deut. 26:5; Isa. 51:2).
13. Egyptians shall hear. Moses uses these words as an argument with Jehovah in his petition for Israel (see Ex. 32:12; Deut. 9:28; Joshua 7:9; Isa. 48:9, 11; etc.).
14. This land. The reference is to Canaan.
Face to face. Literally, “eye upon eye.” Compare with similar expressions in Num. 12:8; Ex. 33:11; Isa. 52:8.
15. As one man. A figure of complete destruction, as of one man by one stroke (Judges 6:16).
Fame of thee. The Hebrew word means “report” or “tidings,” either true or false.
17. Power of my Lord. The word “Lord” in this verse is not the one translated Jehovah, as in vs. 16 and 18, and therefore is not printed in small capital letters in the KJV (see on Ex. 6:3; 15:2). Here Moses uses an argument based on the nature of God as revealed on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 34:6, 7).
18. Forgiving iniquity and transgression. Literally, “One who lifts up iniquity and transgression.” The word translated “iniquity” means “perversion,” “distortion,” “twisting;” and “transgression,” “rebellion,” “defiance,” “revolt.”
20. According to thy word. The people would yet perish in the wilderness Ex. 32:34),but the prayer of Moses prevented their complete extermination as a nation. In his role as intercessor, Moses was a forerunner of Christ (Ps. 106:23; Jer. 15:1).
21. As I live. The same expression appears in Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Zeph. 2:9. It is used in confirmation of a most solemn statement.
22. Tempted me. The Hebrew word here used means “to test,” “to put to the proof,” and not “to tempt” in the modern sense. Compare the following use of the same verb translated “prove,” meaning “test”: Ex. 15:25; 20:20; Dan. 1:12, 14; Mal. 3:10.
24. My servant Caleb. The fulfillment of this promise appears in Joshua 14:6-15; Judges 1:20.
Another spirit. That is, the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the personal spirit of Caleb (see Judges 3:10; 6:34; Isa. 59:19; 61:1).
Followed me fully. This is repeated several times (see Joshua 14:8; Num. 32:11; Deut. 1:36).
25. In the valley. If they should seek to enter the Holy Land through the valley, the Amalekites and Canaanites would defeat them.
Turn you. The people were thus commanded to retrace their steps, in a southeast direction to the Red Sea.
29. Your carcases. Used of the dead bodies of men (Amos 8:3) and animals (Gen. 15:11), here in contempt (see Lev. 26:30; Eze. 6:5).
From twenty years old. It is generally thought that the Levites were excluded from this prediction, because they were not among those numbered from 20 years of age, but from one month (ch. 3:15) or from twenty yearss (ch. 4:3). Moreover, they had had no representative among the spies. This is borne out by the fact that Aaron’s son Eleazar, who was evidently over 30 when he became a priest, survived (Joshua 17:4; 24:33).
30. Which I sware. Literally, “which I lifted up my hand” (see Gen. 14:22; Deut. 32:40; Eze. 20:5, 6, 15, 23).
31. Your little ones. Under 20 years of age (see v. 3; Deut. 1:39).
33. Wander. Literally, “be shepherds.” (The same original word occurs in Gen. 13:7; 47:3; Ex. 2:17; Isa. 31:4; Jer. 6:3; etc.) The people were to wander about in the wilderness, taking care of their flocks.
Wasted. The word thus translated does not mean “to waste away” or “to rot,” but “to be used up,” “to be competed,” “to be ended.” Thus it refers to the complete toll to be taken of those condemned to die. Compare the following verses, in which the same word is translated “is spent” (Gen. 47:18), “had done” (Joshua 5:8), “are ended” (Job 31:40) “is perfect” (Isa. 18:5).
34. Each day. From yom, a word rendered variously as “day,” “time” (Gen. 26:8), “season” (Gen. 40:4), “age” (Gen. 18:11), “when” (Lev. 14:57), “now” (Deut. 31:21), “a while” (1 Sam. 9:27), “full” (2 Sam. 13:23), “for evermore” (2 Kings 17:37), “long life” (Ps. 91:16), “so long as I live” (Job 27:6), “weather” (Prov. 25:20), and “year” (Ex. 13:10). Yom, obviously, was much more flexible in meaning than is our word “day.” In common Hebrew usage yamin, “days,” was often used for “year” (see Ex. 13:10; Lev. 25:29; Num. 9:22; Joshua 13:1; Judges 11:40; 17:10; 21:19; 1 Sam. 1:3, 21; 2:19; 20:6; 27:7; 2 Sam. 14:26; 1 Kings 1:1; 2 Chron. 21:19; Amos 4:4).
The word yom is a softened form of chom, “heat,” from the root yacham, “to be warm” (see on Gen. 9:2). Each day was said to be composed of “evening,” the dark or “cool” part of the day (Gen. 1:4, 5; 3:8), and “morning,” the light part or “heat” of the day (Gen. 1:4, 5; 18:1). Similarly, a year was composed of the cold of winter and the heat of summer (see Gen. 8:22). Thus, with respect to their temperature cycles, a significant characteristic common to both, the day and year resembled each other. In Gen. 8:22 the various expressions, “seedtime and harvest,” “cold and heat,” “summer and winter,” and “day and night” are used in this parallel sense. The first two couplets are the product, or result, of the last two. In the first two, heat follows cold; in the last two, cold follows heat. Note particularly the strict parallelism of the last two couplets, where the heart and cold of the year parallel the heat and cold of the day.
Here (Num. 14:34) occurs the first use of the words “day” and “year” together in a correlative sense, in a prophetic setting. The spies had spent 40 days searching the land of Canaan and had reported unfavorably on prospects for occupying it. In so doing they demonstrated a lack of faith in God’s promises and in His power to fulfill those promises, yet their report was accepted by the people (see on v. 4). As a result of this decision the nation was sentenced to 40 years of suffering in the wilderness. The 40 literal days thus became prophetic of 40 literal years—one year of remedial wandering about in the desert for each faithless day spent wandering about in the Promised Land. That this is not an isolated instance of the use of the year-day principle in prophecy is evident from Eze. 4:6, where the same principle is again applied. God specifically told Ezekiel, “I have appointed thee each day for a year,” and in so doing confirmed the principle established in Num. 14:34.
My breach. From a verb meaning “to hinder,” “to frustrate,” “to restrain.” It is also translated “disallow” (ch. 30:5, 8, 11); “discourage” (ch. 32:7, 9); and “maketh … of none effect” (Ps. 33:10). They had set themselves in opposition to God and alienated themselves from Him. In order that they might learn to cooperate with God, He ordained that they should experience His opposition, His frustration of their plans.
37. By the plague. Literally, a “stroke.” The same word is used of the ten Egyptian plagues (Ex. 9:14), of the plague following the insurrection of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:48, 49), and of slaughter by the sword (1 Sam. 4:17; 2 Sam. 17:9; 18:7). The type of “stroke” here visited upon the people is not disclosed.
Before the Lord. That is, the “plague” was a divine judgment.
40. The mountain. That is, “the mountain of the Amorites” (Deut. 1:19, 20), or the hilly country of the Negeb, to the north of Kadesh-barnea (see on Num. 13:17).
Lo, we be here. An acknowledgment that they were ready to do as Caleb and Joshua had pleaded with them to do (chs. 13:30; 14:9).
41. Wherefore now. God had commanded them to retrace their steps (v. 25), not to advance.
42. Not among you. The ark would not accompany them (Num. 14:44; cf. Joshua 6:8, 9), neither would the cloud go before them.
44. They presumed. A glaring case of foolhardy and presumptuous conduct against the will of God.
The ark. The cloud rested over the tabernacle; therefore Moses made no move to leave the camp, and the Levites did not bear the ark before the people (chs. 9:21, 22; 10:33). Apparently, aside from the Levites, all the other tribes set out.
45. Hormah. Meaning, “devoted to destruction.” A city afterward allotted to Judah or Simeon, Hormah is mentioned several times in the Scriptures (Num. 21:3; Judges 1:17; 1 Sam. 30:30). The line of pursuit is given more fully in Deut. 1:44. Its length suggests that the number of wounded and slain was not small.
2. When ye be come into the land. These words make it clear that the legislation here enjoined was not for the wilderness, and that Israel was certain to enter the Promised Land. We presume, therefore, that the reference is not to the entire congregation (ch. 14:31), but to the young people, who were not condemned to die in the wilderness.
3. An offering by fire. That is, any sacrifice burned upon the altar, whether in whole or in part.
A burnt offering. This offering was wholly burned. Each morning and evening a lamb was offered thus for the whole congregation (Ex. 29:38-40; see on Lev. 1:3).
A sacrifice. This is the peace offering, as appears from v. 8 (see Ex. 18:12; Lev. 1:3; 17:5, 8).
In performing a vow. In explanation of “a sacrifice,” that is, a peace offering offered in accordance with a vow, of one’s free will (Lev. 7:16; 22:21).
In your solemn feasts. Appropriate times for additional offerings (see Lev. 23, and Num. 29:39).
A sweet savour. For the life of the Christian as a fragrance, see on 2 Cor. 2:15.
4. A meat offering. The Hebrew word, which means “present” or “tribute,” originally meant any type of sacrifice (see Gen. 4:4). At Sinai it was limited to cereal sacrifices.
A tenth deal of flour. That is, an omer, the tenth part of an ephah (Ex. 16:36), or 2 dry qt. (2.2 l.).
The fourth part of an hin. A little less than a quart.
5. A drink offering. From a root meaning “to pour out” (Jer. 7:18; Hosea 9:4); It is also used of casting metal (Isa. 40:19); the derived noun is translated “graven image” and “molten image” (Isa. 41:29; 48:5; Jer. 10:14; 51:17).
One lamb. If there was more than one lamb, the drink offering and the meat offering were increased accordingly. This was expressly so on a Sabbath day (ch. 28:4-9). No mention is made here of salt; yet it must have been added, since its omission from any sacrifice was forbidden (Lev. 2:13).
6. Or for a ram. This has been regarded as a more acceptable sacrifice than that of a lamb. It had larger accompanying meat offerings and drink offerings, in proportion to the size of the animal.
7. Wine. It is possible that at one time the libation was poured over the sacrifice. Later, it was poured out about the altar (Josephus Antiquities iii. 9. 4). A third of a hin would be 21/2 pt. (1.22 l.).
8. For a burnt offering. This was a freewill offering, and was regarded as most acceptable to God. It was not offered in payment of a vow, but simply as a token of love for God.
9. A meat offering. A minchah, or cereal offering. Such offerings were increased in proportion to the size of the burnt offerings with which they were offered, so much for a lamb (v. 4), more for a ram (v. 6), and for a bullock, three tenths deal of flour with half a hin of oil.
12. According to the number. The proportions of meat and drink offerings were strictly enjoined and regulated.
13. Born of the country. Homeborn, that is, indigenous Israelites.
14. A stranger. A sojourner (ch. 9:14). The LXX reads “proselyte.”
15. One ordinance. That is, for sacrifices.
So shall the stranger be. The Jews later interpreted this as not including a right to the Sanhedrin or in the council in Jerusalem.
16. One law and one manner. This liberal attitude was calculated to encourage foreigners to become proselytes to the Jewish religion and to ensure that they receive kindly treatment at the hands of the Jews.
19. Bread of the land. That is, what the land produced (see Ps. 104:14, 15).
20. A cake. This was not placed upon the altar, but was given to the priests, who were allotted all heave offerings (ch. 18:8). They were called “heave offerings” because they were lifted up in presentation to the Lord as the Creator and Giver of all good things.
23. Lord commanded Moses. The word “Moses” was supplied by the translators. It is not in the Hebrew text. The sense is clearer without it.
24. By ignorance. That is, not planned, or without deliberate intent on the part of the transgressor. The Hebrew word denotes transgressions committed unwittingly (Lev. 4:2).
Without the knowledge of. Literally, “from the eyes of” (see Lev. 4:13), that is, a personal sin not generally known.
25. An atonement. From the same Hebrew word also translated “mercy seat,” meaning primarily “to cover.” It is significant that the entire congregation seems to be involved in this one person’s sin and in the sacrifice made for it. This is emphasized in v. 26.
27. Any soul. Literally, “soul of life,” that is, a creature having life.
A she goat. In Lev. 4:28 a famael “kid of the goatss” is specified, no mention being made of age.
30. Presumptuously. Literally, “with a high hand,” with express intent (see Deut. 17:12; Ps. 19:13).
Cut off. The sacrificial system provided no atonement for deliberate opposition to the will and commands of God.
31. Despised the word. Compare David’s experience in 2 Sam. 12:9; see also Prov. 13:13; 19:16.
32. Gathered sticks. The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath of the creation week was obligatory in the wilderness as in the Holy Land (Ex. 16:27-30), with death as the penalty for profanation (Ex. 31:14, 15; 35:2). In the wilderness, with its warm climate, fires were unnecessary for health, and were not to be lighted on the Sabbath (see on Ex. 16:23; 35:3). This man’s act was clearly presumptuous, thereforean illustration of the type of sin spoken of in Num. 15:30.
33. The congregation. That is, probably, to the council of elders, who represented the congregation (Ex. 18:25, 26).
34. What should be done. Unquestionably, the penalty was death (Ex. 31:14; 35:2). But how it was to be inflicted was not then made clear. Moses desired clarification of this point.
35. Shall stone him. This was the penalty for outstanding crimes (Lev. 20:2; 24:14). This man was the first to break the holy Sabbath since the giving of the law, at least so far as the record is concerned.
Without the camp. Probably to avoid ceremonial defilement of the camp (see Acts 7:58; Heb. 13:12).
36. He died. It was his defiant attitude that brought severe retribution. He deliberately broke the Sabbath.
38. Fringes in the borders. Literally, “at the wings” of their garments, referring presumably to the folds (see Matt. 14:36; Mark 6:56). The word translated “fringes” is used of the plate of gold upon Aaron’s headband (Ex. 28:36); in Jer. 48:9 it is translated “wings,” and in Eze. 8:3 “a lock” of hair.
39. That ye may look. The “fringes” were to be a constant reminder to the people that they belonged to God, and that in dress as in other habits they were to follow the principles He had imparted to them.
40. Be holy. Holiness is not attained by outward observances, such as wearing tassels and ribbons, but only by obedience to God’s will.
41. The Lord your God. That is, “Jehovah your God.” Twice in this short verse this phrase is given. It may have been so stressed in view of the people’s proneness to worship and to serve other gods.
1. Korah. Korah was a descendant of Levi (Ex. 6:16, 18, 21; 1 Chron. 6:37, 38), The Korahites encamped on the south side of the tabernacle, near the Reubenites. The children of Korah were assigned to the ministry of music and song at the sanctuary services (see titles of Ps. 42, 44 to 49, 84, 85, 87, 88).
Dathan and Abiram. The name Dathan is not found elsewhere in the OT. The father of these two men was the son of Pallu, the second son of Reuben (ch. 26:5, 8, 9).
On. This person is never mentioned again. Some have thought this may indicate that he withdrew from the conspiracy, refusing any active part in it.
Sons of Reuben. Dathan and Abiram, princes of the tribe of Reuben, claimed for themselves, as descendants of Jacob’s first-born, the right of civil leadership in Israel.
Took men. There is no reason for the supplied word “men.” In the Hebrew the object of the verb is not given. Some suggest that “offerings” should be read here in place of “men.” Perhaps it is better to construe the object of the verb “took” as being “certain of the children of Israel,” in v. 2.
2. Before Moses. Literally, “against the faces of Moses,” that is, openly and defiantly.
Princes of the assembly. These men of the congregation apparently belonged to other tribes as well as to that of Levi.
Famous in the congregation. Or, “chosen from the assembly” (RSV). This probably refers to their being called to public consultations in deliberations on weighty matters.
Men of renown. Literally, “men of name.” Men held in high esteem in the church were involved in this insurrection, thereby making it the more serious. Similar expressions are found in Gen. 6:4; 1 Chron. 5:24; 12:30.contrast in Job 30:8, where the expression “children of base men” is, literally, “children of nameless men.”
3. Congregation are holy. That is, qualified to be priests. This expression may have reference to the fact that before Moses’ time every one might offer sacrifices in his own family. But now this office was confined to one family, and that one enjoyed all the benefits that came from the privilege. It is true, of course, that in asense the whole congregation was holy, in that the people were chosen by God and separated from the surrounding nations (Ex. 19:6; Lev. 20:26). But God had now ordained that the theocratic church should exercise its outward priestly function through the one family that had been set apart for that purpose.
Among them. Particularly, in the pillar of cloud and in the sanctuary. The rebels suggested that aside from Jehovah no other leader was necessary (see Ex. 29:45).
Above the congregation. The word here translated “congregation” is different from the previous one in this verse. The first “congregation” is from the root “to appoint,” “to meet by appointment.” The noun derived from the verb is almost always translated “congregation,” and is often used of an informal gathering of the people. In Judges 14:8 it is used of a “swarm” of bees; in Ps. 68:30, of a “multitude” of bulls. In the second instance rendered “congregation” refers to all manner of gatherings of people, whether for religious instruction, for prayer, for war, or for complaint. It is rendered “assembly” in the RSV.
4. Fell upon his face. Presumably Aaron also prayed, as in ch. 14:5, though it is possible that he took no active part in this prayer by Moses as he prostrated himself before the Lord.
5. Spake unto Korah. Moses rose up from his prayer and addressed Korah as the leader of the group. God immediately answered the prayer of Moses, directing him by His Spirit.
Even to morrow. Literally, “the morning.” There was to be no delay, no suspense, beyond that of the rest of the day, to allow them time to think over what they were doing, and to repent and retract if they were so minded.
The Lord will shew. Jehovah would take charge, probably giving some outward sign for which they were to wait.
Who is holy. That is, “who are his.” The men who are His are the holy, separated, consecrated individuals, those eligible for the highest service.
To come near. It is possible that the meaning here is to approach the altar to minister there. This expression is commonly used of the priests (Lev. 21:17; Eze. 40:46).
6. Censers. The same Hebrew word is translated “firepans” (Ex. 27:3). The offering of incense was considered one of the holiest of all priestly functions (see on Luke 1:9). Korah and the men with him were invited to carry out a most important duty of the office to which they aspired.
7. Ye take too much. Note how Moses adopts the words of Korah given in v. 3.
8. Sons of Levi. Since Moses directs his remarks to the Levites, it would appear that a considerable number of them had been influenced by Korah’s arguments.
9. A small thing. Rather, “Is it too little for you?” Compare with Num. 16:13; Isa. 7:13. Korah and the Levites in his company already possessed great privileges beyond those of the other tribes, but were not satisfied. They desired to have the same prerogatives as the family of Aaron.
Near to himself. The Levites had already been appointed to the sacred service; therefore, for them to seek the priesthood also was a most flagrant presumption.
11. Against the Lord. The rebellion was not against Aaron, but God (see Ex. 16:8; 1 Sam. 8:7; Acts 5:3).
And what is Aaron? Aaron was God’s servant, under God’s appointment; so the responsibility was not his.
12. Dathan and Abiram. Having challenged Korah, the leader, and his Levite followers, to a test on the morrow (vs. 5-7), Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the Reubenite conspirators.
We will not come up. These men refused to submit their case to arbitration in court. The expression “to come up” is the Hebrew term for appearing before a court of law (see Deut. 25:7; Judges 4:5). They denied the legal authority of Moses.
13. Milk and honey. The reference is to Egypt as abounding with the good things, in contrast with the barren desert where they now were.
A prince over us. An impudent remark, inferring that Moses exercised autocratic power over them.
14. Put out the eyes. Or, “blind.” These words imply that Moses sought to deceive the people. Some have read a literal meaning into the words, as in Judges 16:21with regard to Samson. The former explanation seems more probable here (see PP 399).
15. Very wroth. Or, “exceedingly sad” (LXX). The meekness of Moses could not endure their insolence (see on ch. 12:3).
Respect not. The reference is to the incense the men were about to offer (see Gen. 4:4, 5).
One ass. Compare Samuel’s protest (1 Sam. 12:3).
Neither have I hurt. Moses had not practice any kind of oppression whatever; to the contrary, he had not spared himself in doing good.
17. Two hundred and fifty censers. The number of the rebellious princes (v. 2).
Before the Lord. That is, in the court of the tabernacle.
18. Every man his censer. That is, of the company of 250 men.
Put fire in them. Presumably from the altar of burnt offering, which stood in the court (see Lev. 16:12, 13). The men were standing within the court.
19. The glory of the Lord. This is the second special appearance of Jehovah’s glory (ch. 14:10), moving out from the most holy place where it usually abode.
Unto all the congregation. This must have been a most amazing spectacle. The unthinking majority of the people were in agreement with Korah.
21. Separate yourselves. The congregation that had assembled at the call of Korah thereby allied themselves with the rebellion and became objects of God’s displeasure (see Gen. 19:17, 22; Jer. 51:6, 9).
22. Fell upon their faces. To plead with God (v. 4).
The God of the spirits of all flesh. He who created man body, soul, and spirit cannot but be fully aware of the thoughts a man thinks. God is fully able to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.
25. The elders. That is, the 70 elders who had been appointed to assist Moses (ch. 11:16). It is evident that Moses had the support of the official leaders of the people.
26. These wicked men. The people are exhorted to instant and complete separation from those in rebellion.
Touch nothing of their’s. All the goods of the rebels with their persons were anathema, devoted to destruction, therefore not to be touched (Deut. 13:17; cf. Achan, Joshua 7:1).
Consumed in all their sins. Literally, “swept away with all their transgressions.” Compare the similar experience of the Sodomites (Gen. 18:23; 19:15).
27. Dathan and Abiram. Korah is not mentioned, but apparently stood with them, since his name is given in the first part of the verse.
Their little children. The root word translated “little children” means “to take quick steps,” “to trip along,” and refers to children who are old enough to walk about safely on their own. The same word is used in 2 Chron. 20:13; 31:18. God did not impose this death penalty upon small children. But, as often happens, innocent children suffered for the obstinacy of their elders, who refused to repent or even to heed the warning to flee. Some, at least, of Korah’s children survived (Num. 26:11; Ex. 6:24).
28. Of mine own mind. Literally, “from my own heart.” Moses had not been governed by personal ambition. There is no word in Biblical Hebrew for “mind” (see Jer. 23:16, 20).
29. The Lord hath not sent me. It is stated more emphatically in the Hebrew: “It is not Jehovah who sent me.” For a similar use of the negative placed in the emphatic position see Gen. 45:8; 1 Sam. 6:9.
30. Make a new thing. Literally, “but if Jehovah will create a creation.” Moses was asking for an extraordinary manifestation (see Ex. 34:10; Jer. 31:22) that could not be accounted for aside from divine intervention.
Quick into the pit. They were to go down, literally, “alive into sheol,” even as they stood there in perfect health. “Quick” is an archaic word meaning “alive” or “living.” Sheol is the grave, the place of the dead (see on Gen. 37:35 and Ps. 16:10).
Provoked the Lord. Literally, “despised, considered unworthy” of notice (see ch. 14:23).
31. End of speaking. A remarkable vindication of Moses in that the words werescarcely out of his mouth when God acted to confirm them and vindicate him.
32. Swallowed them up. An instantaneous act of God to prevent the spread of a rebellious spirit that had already perverted the entire congregation.
All the men. This may refer to members of Korah’s family, though no mention is made of the young children of his household (see ch. 26:11). Again, it may be speaking of heathen slaves or of Israelites who were followers of Korah.
33. The earth closed. The whole company went down alive as Moses had foretold (v. 30), and the earth closed up again, a remarkable testimony to direct divine intervention.
34. All Israel. Though the people were at a distance, having removed themselves (v. 27), the sound of the convulsion of the earth engulfing the rebels and of the victims’ shrieks of fear and dismay, caused them to flee still farther away.
Swallow us up also. Conscious of their previous murmuring and unbelief (ch. 14), and aware of their sympathy for the rebellious faction, they feared they might meet the same fate.
35. A fire from the Lord. From “the glory of the Lord” that “appeared unto all the congregation” (v. 19; PP 401).
37. Eleazar. He was also appointed to officiate at the offering of the red heifer (ch. 19:3). In both instances it was apparently deemed imperative that the high priest avoid ceremonial uncleanness (Lev. 21:10-15).
Out of the burning. From among the burned bodies.
They are hallowed. The censers had been used for offering incense to Jehovah, and had held sacred fire from off the altar (Num. 16:7, 18, 46; cf. Lev. 16:12, 13). Previously they had been but the private property of the princes (Num. 16:6).
38. Sinners against their own souls. Perhaps we should understand this as “at the cost of their own lives” (see Prov. 20:2; Hab. 2:10; Heb. 12:3).
A covering of the altar. The altar of incense was of gold (Ex. 30:3; 37:26); so the reference is apparently to the brazen altar in the courtyard. Yet that altar was overlaid with bronze when it was first made at Sinai (Ex. 27:2; 38:2). This, then, was probably an additional bronze covering to protect the original metal top. The censers of Korah and of the company with him were made of bronze (Num. 16:39). In the time of Solomon censers were made of gold (1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chron. 4:22).
40. A memorial. In explanation of the preceding words, “they shall be a sign” (v. 38).
No stranger. For the transgression of this admonition by Uzziah see 2 Chron. 26:16-19.
As Korah. Lest he meet the same terrible fate.
By the hand of Moses. Moses was the mediator between Eleazar and God (see vs. 36, 37).
41. On the morrow. An amazing example of the willfulness of the heart of man in ignoring the judgments of God occurred the following day.
Murmured. It would be difficult to find a more outstanding example of rebellion after so impressive a demonstration of divine disapproval as had been witnessed.
Ye have killed. The pronoun “ye” is emphatic in the Hebrew. The people apparently attributed the death of the 250 princes to Moses and Aaron, who had suggested that they offer incense in their censers. They may also have felt that Moses and Aaron should have pleaded with God to forgive the princes, rather than call down judgment upon them.
42. Gathered against. Simple murmuring gave place to threats of physical violence (see PP 402).
43. Moses and Aaron came. To receive instruction from God and to rest under His protection.
44. Unto Moses. The LXX adds the name of Aaron. Eleazar may also have stood with them (see on v. 45).
45. Get you up. Referring no doubt to the three men, Moses, Aaron, and Eleazar. In Hebrew “you” is plural.
They fell. Pleading for mercy for people who deserved judgment (v. 21).
46. Said unto Aaron. Moses acted as God’s mouthpiece.
Take a censer. The Hebrew is definite,“Take the censer,” that is, the one Aaron used as high priest. Incense was a symbol of mediation and intercession (see Ps. 141:2; Rev. 8:3, 4).
Unto the congregation. The incense was regularly offered only at the golden altar within the sanctuary. But now at God’s command Aaron carried it among the people without, thereby demonstrating his authority from God, and the power of God working in and through him.
An atonement. There was no time to choose and sacrifice an animal. Atonement was made by means of the incense in the censer, for the plague was already rampant among the people.
47. Ran. That is, from one tribal encampment to another. The plague had broken out everywhere, and people were dying on all sides.
48. Between. As if he were standing before a tide, to prevent it from advancing.
The plague was stayed. Aaron was here a type of Christ, who came down among sinful men and made Himself an offering for them (Eph. 5:2).
49. They that died. Whole families were no doubt wiped out, a terrible example of the evils of rebellion against God’s expressed will. This was in addition to those “that died about the matter of Korah”; perhaps, all told, not less than 15,000 people perished.
50. Aaron returned. To replace his censer and join Moses, who was still at the tabernacle.
1. Spake unto Moses. Probably soon after the staying of the plague, so that further steps might be taken to root out completely the spirit of rebellion.
2. Speak unto the children of Israel. God still recognized Moses as mediator between Himself and His people.
Every one of them. Not as individuals, but as representatives of each tribe.
Twelve rods. These were the official symbols of the tribal authority vested in the princes. The reference is not to rods or sticks freshly cuts from trees. The same Hebrew word is used of the staff of Judah (Gen. 38:18) and of the rod of Moses (Ex. 4:2). There were 12 tribes in addition to Levi; but there was also a rod for Aaron. Commentators disagree as to whether Joseph was counted as one tribe, or separately as Ephraim and Manasseh, or whether Aaron’s rod was in addition to the 12 for the tribal princes.
Write thou. Compare Eze. 37:16. The writing may have been done with some form of ink, or was perhaps cut in. The names of the princes, one for each rod, were placed on the staves.
3. Aaron’s name. Inasmuch as there was no prince to represent Levi, Moses inscribed the name of Aaron upon the rod for the tribe of Levi. Aaron alone should hold the high office to which he had been assigned. No other, even of the tribe of Levi, might aspire to that office.
4. Before the testimony. This was apparently in the most holy place (see Num. 17:7-10; Heb. 9:4).
Where I will meet. Literally, “where I meet with you.” The very place where God had said He would speak with Moses (Ex. 25:22), and through him to the people.
5. Make to cease. Further grumbling against Aaron would be open defiance of Jehovah.
7. Before the Lord. Literally, “in the presence of Jehovah.”
8. On the morrow. Moses had implicit faith in the immediate operation of divine power.
Tabernacle of witness. That is, the most holy place (see on v. 4).
Yielded almonds. Here was evidence of God’s pleasure. The staff that had been placed there for Aaron could not have received life, germinated, brought forth bud, flower, and mature fruit if God had not imparted to it life and miraculous growth. None could doubt that a miracle had been performed.
9. They looked. That is, examined the rods. Each prince identified his own staff. The evidence was clear.
10. Bring Aaron’s rod again. Literally, “Cause the staff of Aaron to return.” It was to be returned to the place where the miracle had been performed (Heb. 9:4).
Against the rebels. Literally, “against the children of rebellion” (see 2 Sam. 7:10; Isa. 30:9).
Take away their murmurings. The people would be convinced that to oppose Moses and Aaron would be to set themselves in opposition against God.
That they die not. As God had warned (see ch. 16:21, 45). King Uzziah disregarded the special privilege of the priestly tribe and was stricken with leprosy while he held a censer in his hand (2 Chron. 26:19).
12. Spake unto Moses. A fitting sense of awe and fear entered into the hearts of the people and made them willing to approachMoses as the mediator chosen by God.
We die. The people realized that their future safety depended upon obedience to God’s will.
13. Near unto the tabernacle. Anyone, that is aside from the priests (see ch. 16:40). The people now realized that access to Jehovah, the privilege they had sought through Korah (ch. 16:3-5), might be theirs only through the mediatorship of those appointed by God. Also, they no doubt remembered the curse of ch. 14:35, that “in this wilderness they shall be consumed.”
1. Bear the iniquity. The priests, as distinct from the remainder of the Levites, were to be responsible for seeing that no unauthorized person approached the tabernacle, thereby defiling it. This would allay the fears of the congregation that in coming near the tabernacle they risked death.
2. Thy brethren also. A reference to the Gershonites and the Merarites, the other two branches of the tribe of Levi.
Be joined unto thee. The verb here translated “joined” is probably the root word of the name Levi (see on Gen. 29:34).
3. Keep thy charge. They were the appointed guardians of the sanctuary.
Not come nigh. This would not refer to the Kohathites (ch. 4:15), but only to the other Levites. The Kohathites were not to handle the vessels when uncovered, nor even to look upon them (ch. 4:19, 20). This prohibition also included the brazen altar Ex. 29:37) as well as the altar of incense, for both were “most holy.”
The vessels. Literally, “the furniture.” The word translated “vessels” includes all the sacred vessels and furnishings of the sanctuary.
4. Joined unto thee. The priests were to look upon their brethren the Levites as an integral part of the corps of men appointed to serve Jehovah in sacred office, even though in an inferior capacity.
A stranger. That is, anyone who was not a Levite (ch. 1:51).
5. No wrath. The Levites were responsible outside the tabernacle, as the priests were within. The priests were to care for all the holy things, such as the shewbread (the bread of the Presence), the lamps, etc., and to cover them when they were to be moved. The Levites were to see that members of the congregation did not inadvertently or impiously profane the sanctuary.
6. Your brethren the Levites. The Levites were not to seek the office of the priesthood, as Korah had done, but to assist the priests in the ministry of the Lord. But the priests were not to look down upon them, but always bear in mind that they were to be regarded and treated as “brethren.”
A gift for the Lord. See chs. 3:12, 41, 45; 8:6, 16, 18.
7. Keep your priest’s office. God’s workers should be proud of their office and service in the Lord’s work, and ever keep them inviolate before God.
The altar, and within the vail. These words are in explanation of the expression “your priest’s office.” The priests were to offer the sacrifices at the brazen altar in the courtyard and to perform all the sacred duties within the sanctuary itself, such as offering the incense, arranging the shewbread, trimming and lighting the lamps, as well as other duties related to such solemn occasions as the Day of Atonement.
The stranger. That is, anyone other than a priest. Such should not presume to approach the tabernacle with the intention of performing any priestly function.
8. Heave offerings. This is a reference to the contributions, those parts of the sacrifice not burned upon the altar but reserved to be eaten by the officiating priest. Aaron was to be responsible for these.
By reason of the anointing. Some commentators refer to Lev. 8:12, and so read, “because you have been consecrated by the anointing oil.” The Hebrew reads literally, “To thee, they are given as a consecrated portion, and to thy sons as a privilege forever” (see Lev. 7:35).
9. Most holy things. To specify the things that appertained to the priesthood and to preserve the distinction between the “holy” and “most holy” things as set forth in Lev. 21:22.
Reserved from the fire. That is, from the altar of burnt offerings. The priests received some things that did not come from the altar, such as the 12 loaves of shewbread, or bread of the Presence (see on Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-8).
For thee and for thy sons. These portions were to be a partial compensation for their lack of an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
10. In the most holy place. This is generally thought to refer to the tabernacle in contrast to the outer courtyard. In harmony with the obvious intent of Scripture (Lev. 16:2; Heb. 9:6, 7 the RSV reads “a most holy place.”
Every male shall eat it. And none other, as specifically stated elsewhere (Lev. 2:3, 10; 6:17, 18, 29; 7:6).
11. And this is thine. “This” refers to the less holy things.
The heave offering. The breast of the peace offerings was waved before the Lord, and the right shoulder (or thigh) was heaved before Him (see on Ex. 29:27 and Lev. 7:14). Both became the priests’ (Lev. 7:30-34). This was also true of the right shoulder of the ram offered for a Nazirite (Num. 6:19, 20).
And to thy daughters. These gifts were not exclusively for the use of the males (Lev. 10:14; 22:13). The eating was to be done, however, in a clean place (Lev. 10:14) within the camp (Deut. 12:6, 7, 17, 18), and no unclean person was allowed to be a partaker (Lev. 7:20, 21; 22:4).
12. All the best. Literally, “the fat,” the fat being a symbol of richness in both food and sacrifices (Deut. 32:14; Ps. 63:5; Ex. 23:18; 29:13, 22; 1 Sam. 2:15, 16). It was also used in reference to the choicest products of the country (Gen. 45:18). Reference is here made to the products as they come from the field, before being processed for use.
The firstfruits of them. This may be a reference to time, the first of the crop to mature, but it could also refer to quality (cf. “the first of the firstfruits” in Ex. 23:19).
13. Every one that is clean. All members of a priestly family were allowed to eat of the “first ripe” things. Only those under the ban of uncleanness were excluded.
14. Every thing devoted. Anything placed under a ban was completely given to God and could not be redeemed (Lev. 27:1-29; cf. Num. 21:2; Mark 7:11).
15. That openeth the matrix. That which was born first, if a male, was to be the priests’. If a female should be born first and a male next, the male was not to be the priests’, since it did not in that case open the womb (Ex. 13:2).
Redeem. Two classes of the first-born that belonged to the priests were to be redeemed, that is, bought back with money: (1) unclean animals, being unacceptable as sacrifices, and (2) human beings.
16. Five shekels. The price set when the first-born were exchanged for the Levites (ch. 3:46, 47). Jews today have a ceremony derived from this redemption, when a first-born son is a month old.
17. Thou shalt not redeem. That is, a redemption sum of money would not be accepted, but the animal itself must be sacrificed. These were clean animals, and only the unclean, which could not be sacrificed, were to be redeemed (v. 15).
Sprinkle. The formula used with peace offerings (Lev. 7:31-33).
18. The flesh of them. Except for the fat portions, which were burned, the entire sacrifice became the priests’.
The wave breast. As this and the right thigh (“shoulder”) of the peace offerings became the property of the priests (see Lev. 10:14, 15), so in this case the entire carcass became theirs.
19. A covenant of salt. An indissoluble covenant, one that never decays, a bond of sacred friendship. Salt, itself a preservative, is an appropriate symbol of that which is incorruptible. It is an emblem of a binding alliance, as when two men would eat bread and salt together. Salt was always added to the sacrifices made to the Lord (Lev. 2:13; Mark 9:49).
20. No inheritance in their land. That is, the Levites received no territorial inheritance in the Holy Land as did the other tribes. Aaron himself did not enter into the Holy Land, but this statement is made to him as the representative of the Levites. Certain sacred dues were to take the place of a landed inheritance.
I am thy part. The priests were devoted altogether to God (Deut. 10:9). On their part, the people were to manifest a spirit of generosity toward their brethren the priests, who had not been provided with a landed inheritance (see Deut. 12:12; Joshua 13:14). The priests lived from God’s altar and were fed, as it were, at God’s table.
21. All the tenth. As a reward for their service the Levites were to receive a tenth part of all produce (vs. 26, 30). In Heb. 7:5 the payment of tithes enters into the argument that the Aaronic priesthood was inferior to the priesthood of Christ.
22. Bear sin, and die. Members of the congregation were not to presume to approach the tabernacle with the idea of engaging in any work of the priesthood or of the Levites, lest they die.
23. Bear their iniquity. If the Levites should allow an unauthorized person to do their work for them, they themselves would suffer the penalty due the perpetrator of the offense.
24. As an heave offering. That the people might be willing to give their tithes to the Levites, these are represented as “an heave offering” unto Jehovah. This does not mean that the ritual of heave offerings was followed, but rather that the tithes were to be offered to God, and that He in turn gave them to the Levites.
26. When ye take. A confirmation to Moses (v. 25) of the words spoken to Aaron (v. 20).
Ye shall offer up. The Levites themselves were to give a tithe of what they received from the tithes of Israel.
A tenth part of the tithe. Literally, “a tithe from the tithe.”
27. Heave offering. The Levites’ contribution, which was to be made to the priests, was a tenth part of the tithe that was their income.
Reckoned unto you. Compare Lev. 7:18, where the same word is translated “imputed.” It is used also of the faith of Abraham (Gen. 15:6, literally, “counted”).
As though it were. The Levites had no corn or wine of their own, but were to tithe their income as if it were from their own threshing floor or wine press.
28. To Aaron the priest. Non-Levites were much more numerous than the Levites, nearly 30 to 1 (see chs. 2:32; 3:39). This meant that the Levites were well provided for indeed. It was therefore fitting that as the Levites received tithes from the people, they in turn should pay tithes to the priests.
29. Out of all your gifts. Out of all that came to their hand the Levites were to make their offering to the priests.
Of all the best. Nothing less than the best could be offered to God.
Hallowed part thereof. This was the tithe, the Lord’s part (Lev. 27:30).
31. In every place. Not in some designated “holy place.”
Your reward. It was under their control, to be used for the home, partaken of by the whole household, or sold to purchase other things (see Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:4; 1 Tim. 5:18).
32. Bear no sin. They would suffer no blame by using it for their own purposes and needs.
Heaved. After they had taken out the tenth part for God.
Pollute the holy things. There would be no pollution, with its attendant penalty, from their putting to personal and non-religious use the remainder of the tithes they had received.
Lest ye die. Literally, “and not shall ye die,” as indeed those did who put holy things to a common use.
1. Unto Moses and unto Aaron. Both men were concerned with the instruction that follows, Moses as the mediator to give the instruction, and Aaron as the agent to carry it out.
2. The ordinance of the law. The children of Israel were in fear of losing their lives because of ceremonial pollution (chs. 16:49; 17:12, 13). This law is provided to show how they might be purified from pollution.
A red heifer. Symbolically, the red color suggests blood as an instrument of purification; also, fire.
Without spot. Literally, “faultless,” “sound,” “healthy.”
No blemish. No physical defect (see Lev. 22:20-22).
Never came yoke. Since this animal was selected for a special purpose, it must be one that had not been used for ordinary domestic work (see Deut. 21:3; 1 Sam. 6:7).
3. Unto Eleazar. Inasmuch as the sacrifice of the heifer was for a most important matter, no ordinary priest was to kill her. Eleazar was next to Aaron in rank and eventually succeeded him in office. It was not fitting that Aaron, as high priest, should so defile himself and thus become temporarily unfit for his sacred duties (v. 7).
Without the camp. Compare Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 16:27; Heb. 13:11, 12. As a sacrifice for uncleanness, the animal was to be slain some distance from the sanctuary.
Slay her. Eleazar supervised the sacrifice, but another actually slew the animal. The presence of Eleazar emphasized that it was a sacrifice for God’s service, though offered at a distance from the altar of the tabernacle.
4. Sprinkle of her blood. Eleazar took of the blood as in an expiatory sacrifice (Lev. 4:6), and then sprinkled it in the direction of the tabernacle, toward the presence of God.
Seven times. The number of perfection (see Lev. 4:17), and thereby symbolically denoting the perfection of the expiation. The “dead works” of Heb. 9:13, 14 may be a reference to the frequent use of the ashes of the dead heifer to cleanse defilement. “Dead works” are a weight removed by true repentance. There is no spiritual life in them, and one cannot serve a living God with “dead works,” the fruitsof spiritual death. “Dead works” must be cleansed by the blood of Christ, and His life accepted as a renewing agency.
5. Burn the heifer. All was consumed to ashes after the sprinkling of the blood (see Ex. 29:14). This is the only sacrifice in which the blood is consumed with the rest of the sacrifice instead of being poured out at the altar. Some have suggested that the reason was the lack of a consecrated place away from the altar, where the earth could receive the blood.
6. Cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet. These very items were used in the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49, 51). Cast upon the still-burning heifer, they were thus mixed with the ashes of the carcass to form ingredients of cleansing. Both cedar and hyssop were credited by the ancients with various medicinal properties. The scarlet thread matched the color of the heifer. Cedar wood was regarded as an emblem of fragrance and incorruption, the hyssop as a symbol of purification. Scarlet was a symbol of sin (Isa. 1:18). In all three there was a typical reference to the shedding of the blood of Christ (see Heb. 9:13, 14).
7. The priest shall wash. Inasmuch as Eleazar had come in contact with the carcass of the red heifer and had touched its blood, he became ceremonially unclean. He was therefore obligated to go through ceremonial cleansing before he returned to camp (see Lev. 16:24).
Unclean until the even. Every detail here enjoined was given to make plain the virulent and fatal effect of spiritual uncleanness. Such details can be properly appreciated only as a foreshadowing of the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross (see Lev. 11:24-27, 31, 39; 14:46; 15; 17:15).
8. He that burneth her. This person was to do exactly as the man who led the scapegoat into the wilderness (Lev. 16:26), but he must remain unclean until evening.
9. A man that is clean. That is, free from ceremonial impurity. He must be another person than the man who burned the heifer.
Gather up the ashes. That is, of the heifer, the cedar, the hyssop, and the scarlet thread, blended together.
Lay them up. For mixing with running water, as needed, to supply water for the cleansing of ceremonial impurity (v. 17). Compare this with the ashes of the golden calf (Ex. 32:20).
It shall be kept. That is, the ashes. The Hebrew word is singular in number.
For a water of separation. That is, for the purification of men who, having become unclean, were separated or banished, as it were, from the congregation. The Hebrew word translated “separation” signifies anything loathsome, such as idolatry or immorality. It is also rendered “filthiness” (2 Chron. 29:5) and “uncleaness” (Ezra 9:11; Zech. 13:1).
10. He that gathereth the ashes. The ashes were a purifying means for the repentant one who used them, but a defiling agent to the one who gathered them together.
Unto the stranger. The law of purity applied also to the non-Israelite. Similarly, the remission of sins through Jesus Christ was also for the “stranger” who was “afar off” (Acts 2:39).
11. The dead body of any man. To touch the carcass of an unclean animal entailed uncleanness till evening (Lev. 11:24). The same was true of one who touched the bed of a person that had an issue (Lev. 15:5). But the longer period of seven days was required in the case of contact with a dead person (see Lev. 21:1; Num. 5:2; 6:6; 9:6).
12. Shall purify himself. Literally, “He shall unsin himself.”
13. Defileth the tabernacle. If the polluted person approached the tabernacle without having used the water of separation, he defiled the sanctuary (see Ex. 25:8; Lev. 15:31). If, however, the transgression was done in ignorance, a sacrifice was accepted for an atonement (Lev. 5:3, 6, 17, 18).
14. This is the law. The rule laid down concerning such defilement incurred by contact with a dead person. The Hebrew word here translated “law” is torah. Obviously, as here, torah does not apply only to the Ten Commandments. As a matter of fact, it has many applications. It isused of the instruction of a mother (Prov. 1:8; 6:20) or a father (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 7:2), of wise people (Prov. 13:14; 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18), of a poet (Ps. 78:1), and of a wise wife (Prov. 31:26). It is from a verb meaning “to throw,” “to shoot,” and therefore implies giving direction or instruction to someone.
In a tent. Especially applicable to the time of the wilderness sojourn. Nevertheless, the LXX has “in a house,” thus suggesting that the law was to remain in force after the people had settled in the Holy Land.
15. Every open vessel. The lack of a cover was held to expose the contents of the vessel to pollution resulting from death (Lev. 11:32, 33).
16. Slain with a sword. Thus, one who dies a violent death.
A bone. That is, taken from a grave, or unearthed by a beast.
Or a grave. Hence the custom of white-washing the outside of tombs to make them conspicuous (see Matt. 23:27; Luke 11:44).
Seven days. The same period as prescribed if a dead human body was touched.
17. Ashes of the burnt heifer. Literally, “the ashes of the burning of the sin.” This indicates that the ashes of the burnt heifer were regarded as having in some respects the virtues of a sin offering. Nothing is said as to the quantity of ashes required. Probably a very small amount was deemed sufficient.
As to the nature and purpose of the “purification” (vs. 9, 17) that was accomplished by the sprinkling of the “water of separation [from uncleanness]” (vs. 9, 21), two questions may be asked: (1) What was the nature of the “sin” (vs. 9, 17) or “uncleanness” (v. 13) thus purified? (2) What was the nature of the act of “purification”?
1.The water was “a purification for sin” (vs. 9, 17) contracted by touching a dead person or dead unclean animal, or any part thereof (vs. 11-13), or by entering a house where death had occurred, or by touching a grave (vs. 14-16), whether intentionally or by accident. Contact with death was obviously not an infraction of the moral but of the ceremonial code; yet it is referred to as “sin.” In what sense is the word “sin” thus used?
The word here translated “sin” is chaṭṭa’th, which means literally “a misstep,” “a slip of the foot.” Thus, according to Prov. 13:6, “sin overthrows the wicked” (RSV), that is, it trips him up. In the KJV Prov. 19:2 reads in part, “he that hasteth with his feet sinneth,” but the RSV, “he who makes haste with his feet misses his way,” that is, he wanders from it. Chaṭṭa’th also means “blame.” In Gen. 43:9 Judah offered to “bear the blame for ever,” literally, “be a sinner forever,” should he return without Benjamin. He purposed to do his best, but if he failed he would “bear the blame,” literally, the “sin,” of it.
2.The ceremonial nature of the purification effected by the “water of separation” is evident from its use to “purify” material objects (Num. 31:22, 23). In the case of death the tent itself where the man had died and its contents became unclean and must be purified (ch. 19:14-17). This was certainly not from any moral defilement attaching to them, but solely from ceremonial defilement. Another evidence of the ceremonial nature of the cleansing effected is the fact that after the sprinkling of the water the person still remained “unclean” till nightfall, or even for days afterward (vs. 10-12, 19). The matter of uncleanness, and the purification accomplished by means of the red heifer, took on a moral aspect only when a person failed to obey the provisions ordained by God in connection therewith. Thus, to fail to make use of the “water of separation” as God had instructed, under circumstances where its use was prescribed, was a grievous offense that shut a man out from the mercy of God (vs. 13, 20).
Running water. Literally, “water of lives,” or living water (see Lev. 14:5; John 4:10).
18. Hyssop. In v. 6 the hyssop was burned with the red heifer. Here it is used as an instrument of sprinkling (see Ex. 12:22; Ps. 51:7).
19. The clean person shall sprinkle. A clarification of v. 12.
He shall purify himself. Even after the ceremony the defiled person was still unclean till nightfall.
20. The man that. Verse 20 is a repetition for emphasis (see v. 13).
21. Toucheth the water. As when he put together the ashes and the running water. The Oriental mind even today thinks of a close connection between ceremonial washings and personal holiness.
22. Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth. Everything touched by a person defiled by contact with a dead body became unclean, and anyone touching that thing became defiled until evening. It is evident that inanimate objects could become ceremonially unclean. Great care was taken with respect to the defilement of outward things, in order to impress the people with the need, value, and requirement of inward purity.
1. Into the desert of Zin. That is, the desert territory lying on the borders of Edom (see vs. 14, 15).
In the first month. This would be in Abib, later called Nisan, when the grass was still green (see John 6:10). It would be dry by May or June. This was probably the 40th year of the wilderness wanderings (see Num. 27:14; 33:36-38; PP 410), here passed over with no comment.
In Kadesh. The people apparently remained in Kadesh several months upon this occasion, partly because of good pasture and partly because of the death of Miriam.
Miriam died there. No details regarding her death are given, either as to cause or date. She was probably 132 years of age (Ex. 2:4, 7). Aaron, who died a few months later, was 123 (Num. 33:38, 39), and Moses, 120 (Deut. 34:7).
And was buried there. There is no record of an appointed period of mourning, as later for Aaron (v. 29). This was about 4 months before Aaron’s death (ch. 33:38), and 11 months before Moses’ death. She was the eldest of the three.
2. No water. Thus begins the account of events that led to the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the Promised Land. Evidently the water provided for them since the miracle at Horeb (Ex. 17:1-7) some 40 years ago had now been cut off. This was brought about by God in order to test the faith of the new generation that had grown up in the wilderness (see PP 411).
Against Moses. Compare Ex. 17:2, 3, where their fathers had manifested the same spirit.
3. The people chode. The word “chode” often means “to oppose noisily,” sometimes even with bodily violence.
Our brethren died. The allusion is to the various retributive acts of God as in chs. 11:1, 33; 14:37, particularly to the rebellion of Korah (ch. 16:32, 35, 46). They were apparently thinking of sudden death as preferable to the slow and intensifying torture of thirst.
4. Why have ye brought. Words that reflect the spirit of their fathers (Ex. 17:3).
5. Out of Egypt. They forgot their fathers’ sufferings and lamentations in Egypt (Ex. 2:23, 24; 3:17).
6. From the presence. The attitude of the people seems to have become threatening. Moses and Aaron repaired to the sanctuary for counsel and protection.
Fell upon their faces. To ask that their sin of rebellious complaint be forgiven, and that their physical wants be supplied.
The glory of the Lord appeared. This was no doubt visible to the entire congregation, and should have been both a warning to them and a rebuke to their lack of trust in God (see chs. 14:10; 16:19, 42).
7. The Lord spake. That is, from within the glory that appeared as an indication of God’s presence.
8. Speak ye unto the rock. Nothing is said in the Scripture as to what was to be done with the rod. Perhaps God intended Moses to raise it in the direction of the rock as he spoke.
9. Took the rod from before the Lord. These words seem to imply that it was Aaron’s rod that Moses took. But v. 11 speaks of the rod as belonging to Moses, and Moses’ rod was “the rod of God” (Ex. 4:20; 17:9). Although we have no record of a command to the effect that Moses should place his own rod in the sanctuary, it may have been kept there.
10. Gathered the congregation. In harmony with God’s instruction (v. 8).
Ye rebels. The very language God had used concerning their fathers (ch. 17:10). But with Moses it reflected personal anger rather than zeal for God, and herein lay his sin.
Must we fetch. The use of the personal pronoun applied by Moses to himself and Aaron indicated a disregard of God, as though these two men would have the people think they could perform a miracle by their own power.
11. Smote the rock twice. Part of the sin of Moses lay in the double striking of the rock, for God had not told him to strike it. In addition, Moses forgot the patience of God in His dealings with the people, which should have been reflected in his own attitude and demeanor. He spoke and acted as if the murmurings were against himself.
Water came out abundantly. God met the situation with an abundant supply of water, in spite of the attitude of Moses and Aaron.
12. Ye believed me not. Here is where Moses failed.
To sanctify me. Lack of faith prevented the exhibition of God’s holiness through Moses and Aaron.
Ye shall not bring. The implication is that Moses and Aaron would be removed from their high position by death ere the people entered the Holy land.
13. Meribah. A similar use of the word is found in Ex. 17:7 and Deut. 32:51. The Hebrew root from which the word is formed means “to strive,” “to contend,” “to agitate,” “to quarrel noisily,” often with bodily violence.
He was sanctified in them. That is to say, God demonstrated His holiness and power in the merciful act of causing the waters to gush forth in the presence of the people. Further, He meted out judgment even to His favored leaders when they departed from His command.
14. Unto the king of Edom. Moses did not deem it wise to seek entrance into Canaan from the south, owing no doubt to the attitude of the Hebrew host he was leading. The Edomites, whom he approached, were in occupation of the territory that lay to the south of the Dead Sea, westward as far as Kadesh, and southward to the eastern arm of the Red Sea.
Thy brother Israel. As is the custom in the East today, those of blood relation may be addressed as “brothers.” The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (Gen. 25:30).
All the travail. Moses thus suggests to the Edomites that, as kinsfolk, they would take a sympathetic attitude toward the descendants of Jacob. The word translated “travail” is from the Hebrew root “to be weary,” “to be exhausted.” Here it has reference to the difficulties of their long journey, perilous and wearisome, with no settled home of their own.
15. Egypt. The experiences of the children of Israel were well known among the surrounding nations.
We cried. See Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7, 8.
Sent an angel. See Gen. 24:7; Ex. 3:2; 23:20; 33:2. The Angel in this case was Christ Himself, the eternal Prince of God’s people (PP 366).
17. Through thy country. In order to enter the land of Canaan from the east the Israelites must either pass through Edom or make a long detour to the south, and then turn northward.
By the king’s high way. This was the main artery of travel east of the Jordan, from Damascus in the north to Ezion-geber on the Gulf of ‘Aqaba. Up-to-date maps of early Bible times indicate this trade route. It was along this road that the four kings who attacked Sodom in Abraham’s day came from Syria. “The king’s high way” was repaired centuries later by the Romans, and its route is still in use. An aerial photograph of part of this roadway appears on page 40 of The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible.
18. With the sword. See Gen. 27:40. No doubt the people of Edom were afraid their country would be occupied, or at least despoiled.
19. Without doing any thing else. Moses reiterates the peaceable mind of the Israelites toward Edom and says they would go through “without doing any thing else,” literally, “it is not a thing,” that is, they would not do a single thing other than pass through as quickly as possible.
20. Thou shalt not. Edom feared to allow Israel passage through his territory. He did, however, sell them necessary provisions (see Deut. 2:28, 29).
With a strong hand. The king mustered his troops and made a show of force, manifesting every intention of resisting by force of arms any attempt at passage through his country.
21. Israel turned away. God Himself commanded Israel to turn aside, but to buy needed provisions from the Edomites (Deut. 2:5, 6).
22. Mount Hor. This site has not been definitely located to date. Four different mountains are claimed by different scholars as the Mt. Hor where Aaron died. Jebel Nebi Harun, that is, the mount of the prophet Aaron, has a mosque on the supposed site of the prophet’s tomb, and is visited by devout pilgrims. This location contradicts the Bible account, which demands a mountain outside the borders of Edom (v. 23; ch. 33:37), whereas Jebel Nebi Harun is well within the borders of the country, not far from the ruined city of Petra.
23. In mount Hor. Probably Israel lay encamped at the foot of the mountain.
24. Gathered unto his people. The same expression of death is used of Abraham (see on Gen. 25:8), of Ishmael (Gen. 25:17), of Isaac (Gen. 35:29), of Jacob (Gen. 49:33), and of Moses (Num. 27:13; 31:2).
25. Unto mount Hor. According to Deut. 10:6 Mt. Hor was also known as Mt. Mosera; or it may be that the camp at the base of the mount was known as Mosera.
26. Strip Aaron. A description of the high priest’s garments is given in Lev. 8:7-9.
Die there. With the transfer of the garments and the death of Aaron, priestly succession was emphasized.
27. In the sight of all. There could then arise no question as to the legality of the succession of Eleazar to the sacred office after his father’s death.
28. Moses stripped Aaron. This Moses did, acting for God according to His command, and as a sign of the transference of the priestly office, which continued despite the death of the holder.
Aaron died there. The date of Aaron’s death, and his age, 123 years, are given in ch. 33:38, 39. The death of Aaron emphasized the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood in respect to its changeableness. Paul speaks of the contrast between it and Christ’s priesthood in this respect (Heb. 7:24). According to Deut. 10:6, Aaron was buried at Mosera (see on v. 25).
29. Thirty days. This is the same number of days of mourning observed for Moses some months later (Deut. 34:8).
1. King Arad. The name may refer to the place, making the verse read, “And when the king of Arad the Canaanite” (see Joshua 12:14; Judges 1:16; 1 Chron. 8:15). Arad is about 50 mi. north of Kadesh and 17 south of Hebron, and is known today as Tell ‘Arâd.
By the way of the spies. Rather, “by the way of Atharim.” To translate the Hebrew expression by the words “of the spies,” is to assume an unjustified philological identity between two words where none exists. Grammatically, a proper noun is required after the Hebrew word for “way,” and not a designation of certain travelers who had used the road.
Prisoners. The king apparently cut off a few stragglers in the rear or on the borders of the line of march; for had he attacked the main body in force, there would likely have been some account of battle casualties.
2. Vowed a vow. This is a form of request to Jehovah for help in punishing the king of Arad (see Gen. 28:20; Judges 11:30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:8).
Utterly destroy their cities. Literally, “I will dedicate their cities,” using the verb root of the word translated “devoted” in Lev. 27:29. The import of this is that the spoils of those cities should be devoted to God and His service (see Deut. 7:1, 2; Joshua 6:17, 21). When anything was devoted to God it could not be put to secular use.
3. Delivered up the Canaanites. In harmony with their vow, which the Lord accepted, Joshua effected their destruction upon entering the Holy Land (Joshua 12:14).
Hormah. The word means “destruction,” in the sense of devoted to God, and therefore not redeemable for man’s use. The verb form of the same word is given in v. 2 as “utterly destroy,” that is, offer to God as a sacrifice. The name was apparently applied to the city and its environs (Num. 14:45; Deut. 1:44; Joshua 12:14; 15:30).
4. Way of the Red Sea. A detour was made necessary because they had been denied passage through Edom. They were now on their journey to Ezion-geber (Deut. 2:8), with their backs toward the Holy Land. For encampments between Kadesh and the region of Moab see Num. 33:41-44.
Israel’s route of march led southward through the ‘Araba to the southern border of Edom, and thence eastward. Finally, turning northward, they passed to the east of both Edom and Moab (PP 428, 433; see note on p. 577).
Because of the way. Literally, “on the way.” There were a number of discouraging factors. The part of the country through which they were traveling, the Arabah, is a barren plain strewn with stones and sand, and usually hot and dry. In addition, they realized they were marching with their backs turned to Canaan, instead of entering it.
5. Brought us up. The form of the Hebrew verb here used is another sign of their growing impatience, being the causal form: “caused us to go up.”
No bread. They had an abundance of food, but were rebellious about the monotony of their heavenly diet.
Light bread. The Hebrew word translated “light,” which occurs nowhere else in the Bible, is from the root “to be light,” that is, to hold in low esteem. The people were thinking of the varied and spicy foods of Egypt.
6. Fiery serpents. Literally, “the serpents, the fiery ones.” The word translated “fiery” elsewhere appears as “seraphims” (Isa. 6:2, 6). It is from the root “to burn” (Joshua 11:9; Isa. 44:16; Eze. 43:21). The serpents were called fiery on account of the violent inflammation caused by their bite (PP 429).
Much people of Israel died. The deaths were due to the withdrawal of the protecting hand of God. The part of the country through which they were traveling was infested with snakes, scorpions, etc. (Deut. 8:15); hence, every day provided miracles of divine protection. But now the Lord withdrew His protection and allowed the snakes to attack the people.
7. We have sinned. The people became humble before God, knowing that their accusations against Him were false.
Pray unto the Lord. Compare Job’s petition for his friends (Job 42:10).
8. A fiery serpent. A replica of the kind of serpent that was plaguing the people.
Upon a pole. The word translated “pole” is the one used of a military standard. It occurs in Ex. 17:15, Jehovah-nissi, “Jehovah, my standard.” Also as “banner” (Ps. 60:4), “ensign” (Isa. 11:10), and “standard” (Jer. 51:27). Whatever it was, the pole was high enough to be seen throughout the camp.
9. When he beheld the serpent. The people knew that the serpent was a symbol of the coming Saviour. They also realized that it was not sufficient simply to look at the serpent, but that the looking must be accompanied by faith, since there was no healing in the serpent itself. It was possible to gaze at the image without being healed, if there was no exercise of faith in God as the divine Healer. Similarly, offerings unaccompanied by faith were unavailing (see John 3:14, 15; PP 430, 431).
10. Pitched on Oboth. Previous to Oboth (ch. 33:41-43) the Israelites had pitched in two other places that Moses does not mention here. The site of Oboth has not been determined.
11. Ije-abarim. Literally, “the ruins of the Abarim.” The first word is from the same root as Ai, which means “stone heap,” or “ruins.” The second means “the other side,” and is the one from which we get the word “Hebrews,” that is, the ones who passed over from the other side—immigrants from beyond the Euphrates. Accordingly, some would translate Ije-abarim as “the places of the Hebrews” (see on Gen. 10:21).
Which is before Moab. The wilderness of Moab (Deut. 2:8). The Israelites were now going northward.
12. Valley of Zared [Zered]. Literally, the “stream of Zared.” Its bed would be dry in the hot season. This word is in use in the Urdu language of India, derived through the Arabic, and applied to the canals of the Punjab. The “valley of Zared” is now known as the Wadi el-Hesa, a stream that enters the Dead Sea at its southeastern corner. Anciently, the Zared divided Edom from Moab.
13. Arnon. The Arnon River flows through the present Wadi el Mojib, which is some 1,700 ft. deep and 2 mi. broad, cut into the plateau of Moab. Its gorge is a miniature Grand Canyon.
In the wilderness. The Israelites were still eastward of Moab, in the wilderness of Kedemoth (Deut. 2:26).
Between Moab and the Amorites. The river Arnon rises in the highlands of Arabia and empties into the Dead Sea. The territory of Moab lay to the south of the river, and that of the Amorites to the north (see on Gen. 10:16). The Moabites had been forced south of the Arnon by Sihon (Num. 21:26; Judges 11:22).
14. The book. Like the book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), this record has been lost.
What he did in the Red sea. More accurately, by a literal translation of the Hebrew, “Waheb in Suphah.” Waheb was thename of a town. Suphah, literally, “whirlwind” (as in Job 37:9; Prov. 10:25; Isa. 21:1; 66:15; Hosea 8:7; etc.), perhaps a valley or region where whirlwinds were common (see Deut. 1:1, RSV). Whirlwinds generally came from the south (Job 37:9; Isa. 21:1). The other places mentioned in the context (Num. 21:12-16) lend weight to the suggestion that Suph lay to the north of the Arnon. Some have identified it with Khirbet Sufa, some 8 mi. southeast of Mt. Nebo.
15. The border of Moab. The quotations in vs. 14 and 15, from the book of the wars of Jehovah, suggest that the Amorites had forcibly taken these places from the Moabites. The Israelites were probably in Amorite territory and beyond the borders of Moab.
16. Beer. This is the usual Hebrew word for “well” (Gen. 21:19, 25, 30; 26:15; etc.). It has been tentatively suggested that this is the Beer-elim, or the well of Elim (Isa. 15:8).
17. Sing ye unto it. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of a good well in Eastern countries. Wells were the objects of praise in song, and of violent dispute among men Gen. 21:25; 26:15-22; Judges 1:15; cf. John 4:12).
18. The lawgiver. From the same word translated “sceptre” in Gen. 49:10. This suggests a miracle on God’s part. The ground was soft sand. As the 70 elders and the heads of the tribes thrust their staves into the sand, God caused the water to flow abundantly, so as to form a well of living water.
Mattanah. Site unknown. Possibly to be identified with the modern el-Medei-yineh.
19. From Nahaliel to Bamoth. On the borders of Moab. Nahaliel, “the wadi of God,” which has been tentatively identified with the Wadi Zerga Ma‘in. Similarly, Bamoth, “heights,” may be the same as Bamoth-baal (Joshua 13:17, or “the high places of Baal” (Num. 22:41).
20. The country of Moab. Literally, “the field of Moab,” probably referring to the region claimed by Moab.
Pisgah. Mt. Pisgah offers a magnificent view across the whole of western Palestine. The name comes from a verb meaning “to cut,” “to split”; the related noun means “cliff,” and is applied to the broken, jagged edge of the Moabite plateau where it descends steeply toward the Dead Sea and the valley of the Jordan (Num. 23:14; Deut. 3:27; 34:1). Situated near the northeastern end of the Dead Sea, opposite Jericho, Pisgah is now known as Râs es-Siyâghah.
Looketh toward Jeshimon. Literally, “which looks toward the face of the desert.” Jeshimon is a noun meaning “waste place,” from the verb “to be desolate,” and is used of deserts through which Israel journeyed (Deut. 32:10; Ps. 68:7), and of the desolate land north of the Dead Sea (1 Sam. 23:19, 24; 26:1, 3).
21. Sihon. The Israelites were in the wilderness of Kedemoth, which lay on the borders of the kingdom of Sihon (Deut. 2:26). The land of the Amorites was included in the territory promised to Israel. The Amorites were not akin to the Israelites as were the Ammonites, the Edomites, and the Moabites, but were of Canaanite stock (Gen. 10:16; Deut. 1:7, 19, 27). Sihon is called king of the Amorites, as in this verse, or king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:26, 30), or is identified by a combination of the two names (Deut. 1:4; 3:2). Heshbon was the king’s residence or royal city.
22. Let me pass through. The Israelites sent a message of peace similar to the one previously sent to Edom (ch. 20:14), although orders had been given to conquer Sihon (Deut. 2:26, 24).
23. Jahaz. Perhaps a city in the plain of Moab, later a part of the territory of Reuben. The exact site is unknown (see Deut. 2:32; Isa. 15:4; Jer. 48:21).
Fought against Israel. The Israelites had been assured they would be victorious (Deut. 2:31). The Amorite people were destined to destruction (Joshua 3:10), and they themselves now invited disaster by coming out intending to destroy God’s people.
24. Israel smote him. A heartening victory for Israel, new to warfare, over an enemy who had recently been victorious over Moab.
From Arnon unto Jabbock. Arnon formed the southern boundary of Sihon’s territory (v. 13), Jabbok the northern, and the river Jordan the western boundary. On the eastlay the Ammonites. The Jabbok still bears its ancient name in modern Hebrew.
Was strong. Preferably, “was Jazer,” a town on the border between the Amorites and the Ammonites.
25. All these cities. That is, the cities of the Amorites mentioned in vs. 25 to 30.
Heshbon. The royal city, the dwelling place of the king and the seat of his government. The mound Tell Heṣbân, 18 mi. east of the Jordan across from Jericho, preserves the ancient name.
All the villages. Literally, “all her daughters,” referring to the city of Heshbon as the metropolis, or mother city, and to the villages as her offspring, dependent upon her for their economic and social health.
27. Speak in proverbs. Or, “ballad singers” (RSV). The reference is to the song of vs. 27 to 30 referring to the victory of Sihon over the Moabites. The territory now taken by Israel belonged to the Amorites.
28. A fire. This refers to the conquests by Sihon of the territories surrounding Heshbon, the fire and flames being a symbol of war (see Amos 1:7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5).
29. Chemosh. The god of the Moabites (1 Kings 11:7; Jer. 48:7), to whom human sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:26, 27), but who did not deliver his devotees in this crisis.
Given his sons. Meaning that Chemosh was displeased with his worshipers and did not save them from their enemies (see Jer. 48:13).
30. Dibon. There is a modern Diban 3 mi. north of the Arnon (see Jer. 48:18, 22), adjacent to the ancient Dibon, which lies in ruins today. It was here that the famous Moabite Stone was found in 1868.
Nophah. See Judges 8:11.
Medeba. Identified with modern Madeba. Its name appears in the Moabite stone as Mehedeba.
31. The land of the Amorites. The territory Israel now occupied on the east side of the Jordan was that of the Amorites, and not of the Moabites, who had been driven from it.
32. Jaazer. The site of Jaazer is not known. Various places have been suggested, but none can be definitely identified. It was not far from Mt. Gilead (2 Sam. 24:5, 6; 1 Chron. 26:31). With the taking of this city Israel completed the conquest of the Amorites.
33. Bashan. Bashan was famous for its fine pasturelands, on which thrived large herds of cattle, and also for its oak forests Deut. 32:14; Ps. 22:12; Eze. 27:6).
Og. A descendant of the mighty Rephaims Gen. 14:5; Joshua 12:4; 13:12).
Edrei. This has been identified with Edrea or Der‘a, some 22 mi. northwest of Bosra. It was apparently the second royal city of Bashan (see Deut. 1:4; Joshua 12:4; 13:12), 30 mi. east-southeast of the Sea of Tiberias, and 30 mi. west of the Hauran range on the southern border of Bashan (Deut. 3:1, 10), near a branch of the Jarmuk. The ruins of the city are buried beneath the modern village. Had Og remained behind his fortified towers, Israel could scarcely have touched him. In the divine Providence he left his fortifications and gave battle in open country.
34. Fear him not. Such an assurance from God was needed on account of the giant stature of the men (Deut. 1:28; 3:11), and the fame of their fortifications.
35. They smote him. After defeating the army of Og, Israel occupied the whole country, except for some parts of it that held out awhile longer. The final conquest was accomplished by Jair, the son of Manasseh, who received the region of Argob as his reward (Num. 32:39, 41; Deut. 3:14).
And his sons. Not mentioned in Deut. 3:3.
Possessed his land. This included some 60 fortified cities in addition to a number of smaller towns (Deut. 3:4, 5; Joshua 13:30). This was given to the half tribe of Manasseh, as already stated (Deut. 3:13; Joshua 13:29, 30; 1 Kings 4:13).
1. The plains of Moab. The plains country had formerly belonged to the Moabites. Though the Amorites had conquered it (ch. 21:26), the country retained its original title. We are not told the month in which the children of Israel pitched their tents in the plains of Moab, but it is generally thought to have been near the end of the 40th year when they set out from the mountains of Pisgah, or Abarim (chs. 21:20; 33:48). The plain has an area of some 60 sq. mi.
On this side Jordan. That is, the east side, opposite Jericho. They did not cross the Jordan until Joshua took command (Joshua 3:1).
2. Balak. Meaning “ravager,” “devas tator,” from the root “to lay waste,” “to ravage.” He is mentioned again in Joshua 24:9; Micah 6:5; and in Judges 11:25 without reference to Balaam.
Zippor. Meaning “little bird.” The feminine form of the name is Zipporah, the name of Moses’ wife. The masculine form does not occur again in the OT unless Zophar (Job 2:11) is a variant spelling of the same name.
Had done to the Amorites. That is, to the Amorite (see on Gen. 10:16) kings Sihon and Og, the most powerful of the Canaanite rulers at the time (Deut. 3:8).
3. Moab was sore afraid. They were not aware of God’s command to Israel not to disturb them, and were therefore in dread of being dispossessed of their territory (cf. the attitude of the Egyptians in Ex. 1:12). The fear the Moabites now felt had been foretold (Ex. 15:15).
4. The elders of Midian. Moab and Midian were traditional enemies (Gen. 36:35), but were ready to unite against Israel. It seems that the “elders” were also called “kings” (Num. 31:8) and “princes”(Joshua 13:21). Among the peoples of the East men of age and experience are even today called “elders.” The Midianites were descendants of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25:2, 4), and were a pastoral people and itinerant traders (Gen. 37:28).
The grass of the field. Literally, “the greenness of the field,” meaning every trace of vegetation.
5. Sent messengers. Apparently sent by agreement with the Midianites (see v. 4).
Balaam. From a verb meaning “to swallow up,” “to engulf,” “to violently destroy.”
Pethor. Now definitely identified with Pitru, a short distance from the Euphrates, and to the south of Carchemish. This identification requires that “the river” must be the Euphrates (see Ex. 23:31; Joshua 24:2, 3, 14). According to Balaam’s own statement (Num. 23:7) he was from Aram, as the region of Upper Mesopotamia was known (see PP 438).
His people. Literally, “Amaw” (RSV), now definitely identified with the region of the Sajûr Valley, from an inscription on the statue of Idrimi. This valley is situated between Aleppo and Carchemish. The journey from Pitru (see above), a distance of some 400 mi., would require 2 weeks (see PP 438, 439).
A people. An organized nation that 40 years previously had spoiled Egypt and humbled Pharaoh.
Over against me. A constant threat of organized raiding parties. Such a situation naturally made the Moabites most apprehensive.
6. Curse me this people. Balak and his people were believers in the power of the sorcerer and his incantations. Magic, the black art, and devil possession are the natural accompaniments of idolatry.
Too mighty for me. Balak realized he needed more than human help to cope with the apparent power of Israel.
Is cursed. Balak was planning to destroy Israel but was afraid to attempt it in his own strength. He had heard of the effectiveness of Balaam’s powers. In ancient times blessing and cursing were both common, as by Noah (Gen. 9:25-27), Isaac (Gen. 27:27), Jacob (Gen. 49), Joshua (Joshua 6:26), and Elisha (2 Kings 2:24). Similarly, Goliath prefaced his combat with David by calling down the curse of his good upon the lad (1 Sam. 17:43). It is folly to seek to explain all the phenomena of heathen magic by assuming it to be merely trickery.
7. Rewards of divination. Moab and Midian were united in this scheme. The rewards of divination and intercession were looked upon as legitimate gain (see 1 Sam. 9:7, 8; 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 8:8). From ancient times one would scarcely approach an eminent person without a present in one’s hand (Gen. 43:11, 25, 26; Mal. 1:8).
8. Bring you word. An apostate prophet plays with fire, in the hope of worldly gain. Balaam already knew of the Israelites and of God’s attitude toward them (PP 439).
The Lord. Literally, “Jehovah,” the sacred name for God. Many commentators find Balaam’s use of the word Jehovah most perplexing, for they regard him as a heathen soothsayer. The facts of the case are that Balaam was originally a true prophet of God who perverted his gifts for worldly gain (PP 439). Likewise, Melchizedek and Jethro (PP 136, 247) were representatives of the true God. Laban was a man who at least permitted family idols in his house, yet under certain circumstances God condescended to communicate with him (Gen. 31:19, 24, 30).
9. What men are these? This was not a question for information, for God knew all about them (see Gen. 3:10, 11). It was a disciplinary question designed to arouse Balaam to the dangers of the path upon which he was about to set his feet (see 1 Kings 19:9; Isa. 39:3, 4).
10. Balak. This implies that the stronger partner in the coalition was Balak, king of the Moabites, and that the Midianites were the weaker participants.
12. Thou shalt not. Balaam knew his duty (see on v. 8). He was greedy for gifts, but also knew his curses could not harm Israel.
They are blessed. No human being could reverse the blessing of God and turn it into a curse.
13. The Lord refuseth. Again Balaam uses the name Jehovah, as he did in v. 8. He neglects to inform the messengers of Balak that the children of Israel were blessed of God.
14. Balaam refuseth. The princes naturally misinterpreted Balaam’s motives (see on v. 13), and could not give Balak a true report. Too, the may not have been averse to placing the reason for the failure of their mission on Balaam.
15. Princes, more. A typical Oriental approach under such circumstances. Balak supposed that Balaam was holding out for greater respect, which might be shown by sending men of higher rank, and greater appreciation of his services, by an offer of greater rewards.
16. Let nothing. Literally, “do not hold back thyself.” The reflexive form of the verb implies that balak understood Balaam’s reluctance to be due to a desire for greater recognition and rewards.
I will promote thee. Literally, “honoring thee I will honor thee exceedingly” (see Dan. 2:6).
Whatsoever thou sayest. Not as to rewards, but as to corporation in securing Balak’s objective.
18 His house full. Compare the experience of the unnamed prophet in 1 Kings 13:8.
Silver and gold. A reflection of Balaam’s thoughts, now set on worldly wealth. Avarice was his besetting sin.
I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God. Literally, “Not am I able to pass by the mouth of Jehovah my God.” Such an expression implies personal acquaintance with the God of heaven.
Less or more. Literally, “a thing small or great,” meaning “anything at all” (see 1 Sam. 20:2; 22:15; 25:36). Balaam knew that God could control his actions, even though He could not control his thoughts.
19. Tarry ye. He dealt with them as with the first messengers.
That I may know. Balaam already knew what the Lord would say (see v. 12 and on v. 8). He was attempting to deal with God as though He were a weak man susceptible to a change of mind.
20. God came. The divine messenger is again the Almighty Himself.
If the men come. That is, if they called in the morning to hear his answer.
Rise up, and go. The Lord allowed the prophet to do that which he was determined to do. Balaam was not sincerely seeking God’s will, for he already knew what it was (v. 12). He was determined on his own course, and sought an appearance of permission.
The word. Balaam knew from this statement that he would not be allowed to curse Israel, and to set out with the messengers of Balak was to receive rich presents and go under false pretenses.
21. Saddled his ass. The ass was then commonly used by people of all ranks, particularly for short distances. Camels were used for longer journeys. She-asses are designated in the Hebrew of Judges 5:10 and 2 Kings 4:22, but the he-ass is spoken of more often (Ex. 4:20; Joshua 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20; 2 Sam. 16:2; 17:23; etc.) In a number of instances in the OT the saddling of an ass is connected with tragedy (2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kings 2:40; 13:13).
22. God’s anger. In v. 12 God had made known His mind to Balaam. In v. 20 the Lord allowed him to go. This was merely a permissive directive, based not on God’s will but on Balaam’s self-will. Had the prophet desired God’s will the words recorded in v. 12 would have settled the matter. But when a man is rebellious at heart God may permit him to follow his desires and suffer the consequences (see Ps. 81:11, 12; Hosea 4:17).
Balaam is an example of a prophet who prostitutes his calling, seeking to make gain of his divine gift. Accordingly, we read of the “doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. 2:14), the “error of Balaam” (Jude 11), and the “way of Balaam” (2 Peter 2:15).
The angel of the Lord. This often refers to Christ (Ex. 3:2, 14; 23:20, 23; 32:34; PP 311, 366), though it is not always certain that this is so (see Heb. 1:14; PP 67). Here it would seem to be Christ (PP 366; cf. Ex. 23:20).
Stood in the way. Literally, “placed himself in the way.”
Adversary. Heb. śaṭan, “adversary,” or “enemy.” Inasmuch as Satan is the great enemy of God and man he came to be called, literally, “the adversary,” or Satan (1 Chron. 21:1; Job 1:6; Zech. 3:1). Jehovah stood in Balaam’s path as an adversary, not so much because the prophet was determined to follow his own path to destruction, but rather because he was settinghimself up as an opponent of God’s chosen people. The word “Satan,” a transliteration of the Hebrew term, is regarded as equivalent in significance and import to the NT word the “devil.” He is the enemy of men’s souls, bent on their eternal destruction.
His two servants were with him. No mention is made of the prince of Balak being with Balaam. These messengers, men of rank with large gifts in their hands and the promise of more (vs. 15-17), were upset because Balaam had not immediately agreed to accompany them. Anticipating another refusal, they had already set out on their journey back home (PP 441). Balaam was seeking to catch up with them, and thus particularly annoyed at any delay. The two servants do not enter into the picture, even to the extent of assisting their master to control his ass.
23. The ass saw. The two servants were apparently as blind as their master. The Lord opened the eyes of the ass as He did her mouth shortly after.
His sword drawn. Literally, “a weapon of attack,” from the verb “to attack,” “to smite down” (see Joshua 5:13).
The ass turned aside. There would be fences enclosing the vineyards, but not the fields.
24. A wall. On his journey through the cultivated countryside, the prophet arrives at an enclosed place between two vineyards, a wall on each side with a part between.
25. Thrust herself. By forcibly pressing her body close to the wall the ass is able to get past the angel, who again takes up another position ahead.
Crushed Balaam’s foot. In seeking to brush past the angel the ass violently scrapes Balaam’s foot between her body and the wall.
26. No way. The ass could not turn either to the right or to the left, nor was she able to turn around to beat a hasty retreat.
27. She fell down. The ass realized the hopelessness of the situation. The prophet, blinded by avarice and anger, could only see stubbornness in her conduct.
28. The Lord opened. The only other instance recorded in the Bible of a creature speaking is that of the serpent in Gen. 3.
29. Mocked me. Literally, “played with me like a child,” that is, treated me capriciously and made a plaything of me. The same verb is translated in Judges 19:25 and in 1 Sam. 31:4 as “abuse,” in Job 16:15 as “defiled,” and in Ps. 141:4 as “to practice” wicked works.
Now would I kill thee. The insincerity of the prophet was exposed. He was setting himself forth as able to destroy a nation by his incantations, yet was helpless to kill his ass. A man could scarcely be more blind than not to feel surprised that an ass should converse with him.
30. Since I was thine. Literally, “from thy existence,” that is “ever since you began to ride.”
Was I ever wont? “Is this the way I usually act?” The peculiar behavior of the she-ass should have been enough to impress Balaam that something was wrong, for she had never behaved perversely before.
31. The eyes of Balaam. Compare the experience of Elisha’s servant (2 Kings 6:17).
He saw the angel. Balaam lacked spiritual sight. His two servants apparently saw nothing. Compare the experience of Paul’s companions (Acts 9:7).
Bowed down his head. Not in true repentance for his evil designs, but through abject fear.
32. Perverse. Literally, “reckless.” The idea is that Balaam was undertaking a journey on the basis of his stubbornness, and not in harmony with God’s will.
33. I had slain thee. The prophet owed his life to the ass he had savagely beaten. The spirit that controlled Balaam was fully evident in his conduct.
Saved her alive. God would have preserved the ass even if He had slain Balaam. Obedience is a virtue in God’s sight. Compare the experience of another disobedient prophet’s ass (1 Kings 13:24).
34. I have sinned. Perhaps he had in mind his senseless beating of the ass as much as his determined pursuit of the gifts of Balak.
If it displease thee. He knew that the journey was permitted only because of his stubbornness.
35. Go with the men. Compare v. 20,where the same permission was first given, and where God again is identified with the speaker.
36. He went out. Balak went out with a large retinue of chiefs and dignitaries to honor the prophet who, it was hoped, would free the country from fears of invasion.
A city of Moab. Compare ch. 21:15. Ar may be the city here designated.
In the border. Sihon, king of the Amorites, had conquered the land of the Moabites as far as the Arnon. Balak went to the very frontier of his territory to meet the prophet.
37. Earnestly send. A compliment to Balaam, in that Balak did not seek to hide or minimize his anxiety.
38. God putteth in my mouth. Balaam intimates to Balak that he is under restrictions however much he may regret it (see Num. 23:5, 12, 16; 1 Kings 22:14).
Kirjath-huzoth. Literally, “the city of streets.” The site is unknown. Some commentators identify it with Kirjathaim (ch. 32:37).
40. Balak offered. In all probability a sacrificial feast to honor Balaam and make for a propitious beginning of operations. Balak thus demonstrated his joy that the prophet had arrived in safety (cf. 1 Sam. 9:23, 24).
41. On the morrow. Literally, “in the morning.”
The high places of Baal. Literally, “Bamoth-baal,” probably identical with Bamoth in ch. 21:19. The name indicates that it was a heathen sanctuary. It is possible that Balak had the idea that Balaam’s curse would be more effective if he saw the Israelites as he cursed them.
The utmost part. It may be that Balaam was able to see the whole of the camp, or, perhaps, only the portions nearest to the hill on which he stood. It is not clear which is intended.
1. Build me here. That is, on the high place, the sanctuary of Baal, where sacrifices were wont to be held and from which the camp of the Israelites was visible. Seven oxen and seven rams. By multiplying the number of sacrifices Balaam thought to placate God. His mind was now thoroughly controlled by heathen concepts of God, that quantity is more important than quality and material offerings more effective than a sincerely obedient heart.
2. Balak and Balaam offered. As a heathen king Balak would perform priestly offices, assisting Balaam. The mockery of it all was not apparent to the prophet—a wicked prophet of God cooperating with a heathen king officiating at a sacrifice to Baal, thinking at the same time that his own God could be placated by that sacrifice.
3. Stand by thy burnt offering. To tend to it.
Peradventure. Balaam could only hope the Lord would condescend to meet him, for he knew that what was in his heart was contrary to God’s mind.
High. Literally, “bare,” “smooth,” “level.” The verb root means “to make level,” “to smooth,” “to plane off,” “to make bare.” Balaam desired to be alone; he was already on a “high place,” where the altars were built.
4. God met Balaam. The infinite patience of God!
Seven altars. Balaam implies that the sacrifices were made to God, and that He should therefore feel reconciled to Balaam’s plans and be willing to cooperate with him. Compare 1 Sam. 13:12 for sacrifice as a form of supplication and Hosea 12:11 for God’s attitude toward a multiplicity of altars and sacrifices.
5. Put a word in Balaam’s mouth. It is a mark of a true prophet to carry the word, or message, of Jehovah (Deut. 18:18; Jer. 1:9). It has been remarked that as God put words into the ass’s mouth contrary to nature, He also put words into Balaam’s mouth contrary to that prophet’s stubborn will.
7. Parable. The Hebrew word refers to a statement given in figurative rather than in plain language.
The king of Moab. A pretense that Balaam had come against his will.
The mountains of the east. Probably a reference to the barren, stony, and mountainous part of Mesopotamia.
8. How shall I curse? This suggests that Balak was asking Balaam to do the impossible. The blessing of God rested upon His people and the curse of man could not prevail against them.
9. From the top of the rocks. Balaam was standing on the mountaintop gazing down upon the camp of Israel (chs. 22:41; 23:3).
Dwell alone. To dwell apart was a symbol of security (Deut. 33:28; Micah 7:14). Furthermore, the people of God were to be separate from the habits and customs of the surrounding nations.
Not be reckoned. Chosen of God, they were to be a people apart (see Ex. 33:16; 1 Kings 8:53). The Jews came to regard themselves as altogether superior to all other nations.
10. Who can count. The Hebrew construction is such as to express great surprise that one would even think to do such a thing. Compare the promise to Abraham (Gen. 13:16) and to Israel (Gen. 28:14).
The fourth part. Jewish commentators see a reference here to the camp of Israel divided into four parts.
The death of the righteous. The sinful avarice of Balaam precluded any such peaceful end for him (Num. 31:8; Prov. 28:9). The children of Israel were “righteous” because Jehovah had made them so, and had chosen them to be His people (Deut. 7:6-8).
My last end. The Hebrew word here translated “last end” often means “posterity” (Ps. 109:13; Dan. 11:4; Amos 4:2). It may be preferable to understand it so here.
11. I took thee to curse. There was no deceit or subterfuge on Balak’s part. He did not understand that Balaam had been permitted to come only on condition that he speak the words God would put in his mouth. Of course he had told Balak as much (ch. 22:38), but, like Balaam, who should have known better, the king no doubt thought God could be persuaded to change His mind. Balaam’s arrival made it appear to Balak that the prophet himself thought this possible.
Blessed them altogether. The Hebrew is very emphatic: “blessing thou hast blessed.” Balaam had not merely refrained from cursing Israel; he positively blessed them.
12. The Lord hath put. Balak, it would seem, should have recognized that Balaam was not free to follow his own evil way, but was subject to the Spirit of God (see ch. 22:35, 38).
13. Another place. Here was an opportunity for Balaam to withdraw, but his greed for worldly gain held him as if in a vise.
The utmost part. Thinking Balaam might be overawed by the vast Israelite camp, Balak hoped that a view of a small part of it might make the prophet more bold. Thus, by means of several moves to various locations, from each of which a portion of the camp of Israel was visible, the entire camp would finally be cursed.
14. The field of Zophim. From a word meaning “to spy upon,” “to keep watch upon.” The name Zophim means, “the field of the watchers” (see 1 Sam. 14:16; Isa. 56:10; Jer. 6:17; Eze. 3:17). The site of Zophim is not known. It was undoubtedly another “high place” (see Num. 22:41).
Pisgah. A high mountain in Moabite territory, from which much of the surrounding country is visible (Deut. 3:27; 34:1, 2; see on Num. 21:20; 27:12).
Seven altars. The original procedure wasrepeated. In his heart, however, Balaam must have known that he could not reverse the first message from God. But he intended to do everything within his power to earn Balak’s favor and promised rewards.
15. Stand here. Literally, “stand yourself thus.” Balaam is not showing Balak where to stand, but how to comport himself. Perhaps Balaam was implying that Balak was, in part at least, to blame for his own previous failure.
While I meet the Lord yonder. Literally, “and I will petition thus.” Again the prophet speaks of the how of making his petition, and not the place from which he did so. Undoubtedly, however, Balaam did withdraw to another place to meet Jehovah.
16. The Lord met Balaam. Again it is Jehovah who meets the prophet.
Say thus. It was impossible for Balaam to speak against Israel so long as they were faithful to God’s revelations.
17. What hath the Lord spoken? Balak realized that the message came from God, for Balaam was apparently helpless.
18. Rise up, Balak. This may mean, “Pay attention and listen, Balak.” Or again, it may simply mean to stand up in a reverent attitude and listen to the message from Jehovah. The first suggestion is the more probable.
Hearken unto me. The prophet fully realized the import of the message he was constrained to utter, and that without altering a single word. The Hebrew expression suggests not only to listen but to ponder well the import of the message.
19. God is not a man. It seems strange that Balaam did not sense that he was treating Jehovah as if He were altogether a man, to be influenced to change His mind. Such was a purely heathen concept.
Neither the son of man. The word here translated “man” is the generic word meaning any member of the human race; God is not a mere mortal.
Repent. In the sense of grieving over one’s doings. The change of location, the additional altars and the sacrifices offered on them, did not convince Jehovah that He had made a mistake in not being influenced by the first location and offerings. It is only a sincere turning away from evil by the sinner that can influence God to withhold due punishment (see Jer. 18:8; 26:3; Mal. 3:6; Rom. 11:29; James 1:17).
20. Commandment to bless. Jehovah had blessed Israel as His peculiar people. The wicked desires of evil men to hurt them would never lead God to reverse Himself.
21. Perverseness. This statement emphatically declares that so long as Israel remained true to God no evil would befall the nation. The word translated “iniquity” denotes wrongdoing, idolatry, false speaking, or any departure from God’s will, as that which in the end will prove to be unprofitable. There is a moral relationship between sin and its just due expressed by this word. “Perverseness” stresses the fact that sin has made life something heavy to be borne; it has made of the normal pursuits of life a burden grievous to bear. This word is commonly translated “toil” (Gen. 41:51), “sorrow” (Job 3:10; Ps. 55:10), “trouble” (Job 5:6, 7), “wearisome” (Job 7:3), “pain” (Ps. 25:18), “painful” (Ps. 73:16), and “labour” (Ps. 90:10).
The shout. Literally, “the blast of a horn,” sounded as an alarm, or for joy, or in religious fervor (see Lev. 23:24; Ps. 47:5; Jer. 4:19). Possibly here “a shout of joy” is meant.
22. Brought them out of Egypt. Certainly with the object of having them serve Him in truth and righteousness (see Lev. 11:45; 25:38; Num. 15:41).
An unicorn. Probably the “wild ox” (RSV) or the buffalo. It was no doubt a creature of great strength, courage, and of two horns (Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; note the plural, “horns”). The LXX translates this Hebrew word by a Greek term meaning “one horn,” thinking it referred to the rhinoceros. Apparently the translators did not notice that other texts (as noted) speak of this animal as having two horns.
23. No enchantment. It was the strength of Israel that the nation was free from the practice of consulting auguries, omens, oracles, and black art in general. Such practices have ever led men astray from God and are strictly forbidden (Deut. 18:10; Jer. 27:9; Eze. 13:6; Hosea 4:12; Zech. 10:2).
What hath God wrought! The gloriousworking out of God’s plan for the salvation of His people is beyond human language to express (Ps. 44:1; Isa. 40:21; 52:7-15).
24. As a great lion. The adjective “great” is not in the Hebrew. The noun may also mean “lioness,” as well as “lion.” As in other Semitic languages and in Eastern religious books, in the OT the qualities of animals are commonly attributed to human beings (Gen. 49:9, 27; Num. 24:8, 9; Deut. 33:20; Jer. 49:19; Micah 5:8).
A young lion. In his strength rising up from his covert to take his prey.
Eat of the prey. A picture of past and future Israelite conquests. In the war against the Midianites, soon after Balaam’s visit with Balak, not an Israelite lost his life (ch. 31:49).
25. Neither curse. Balak feared that the blessings of Balaam would be as potent as he had hoped his curses would be.
26. All that the Lord speaketh. Balaam realized that he could not remain silent if the Lord commanded him to bless (chs. 22:20; 23:3, 12).
27. From thence. Renewed hope in the heart of Balak led him to think that a view of Israel’s camp from another location might influence Balaam. This was still another opportunity for the prophet to sever connections with Balak and to return home (see chs. 22:6; 23:13; 24:1).
28. Peor. The site of Peor has not been definitely located. The name is used in compounds for various places: Beth-peor (Deut. 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Joshua 13:20) and Baal-peor (Num. 25:3). Peor was a mountain of Moab, in the vicinity of Pisgah, on which was an altar, or perhaps a temple, to Baal or to some other heathen god.
29. Build me. Here the identical procedure noted in vs. 1 and 14 is repeated. Balak and Balaam were apparently at their wit’s end, for despite two previous failures they could think of no other means of obtaining their objective.
30. As Balaam had said. Upon this occasion Balaam did not withdraw to be alone. He made no pretense at working some magical art in secret, but remained with Balak at the altar. The instructions given by Balaam were carried out unquestioningly by Balak. The responsibility was altogether Balaam’s.
1. It pleased the Lord. Balaam was already fully aware of the Lord’s pleasure (ch. 23:20).
To seek for enchantments. Twice Balaam had withdrawn himself to seek a visit with God (see ch. 23:3, 15).
Toward the wilderness. That is, toward the camp of Israel on the plains of Moab (ch. 22:1). He did not move from his place by the altars on Peor. As he gazed at the camp of Israel his mind was prepared to receive the message of Jehovah. He knew he could do no other than permit the Spirit of God to come upon him. Professing to be a prophet of God, he must speak God’s message.
2. He saw Israel. As they were camped according to God’s directions (see ch. 2).
The spirit of God came upon him. On two previous occasions Jehovah had put words into Balaam’s mouth (ch. 23:5, 16). The same experience later came to Saul’s messengers (1 Sam. 19:20), and to Saul himself (1 Sam. 19:23). When the need arises God may use an evil person to bear a true message. God may speak to a man directly or in a dream (Num. 22:9, 20), or by a messenger (v. 32). In harmony with Balaam’s experience here, compare Isa. 48:16; 61:1; Micah 3:8.
Hath said. Commonly used in the prophetic books of the Bible to introduce a divine message (ch. 14:28). There are but three or four exceptions to this rule.
The man. There are several Hebrew words translated “man.” The most commonis ’adam. This word occurs more than 450 times, generally in a generic sense. Another word, ’ish, is used of a man in contrast to a woman, a husband in contrast to a wife, a master in contrast to a servant, an eminent person in contrast to a lowly one. It stresses individuality. A third word is ’enosh. It emphasizes inferiority, being from the verb “to be sick,” “to be incurable.” This word is never used of the Messiah. The final word for man is geber, here used by Balaam of himself. As the word comes from a root meaning “to be mighty,” some commentators think its use by Balaam indicates arrogance.
Whose eyes are open. Commentators are not agreed as to the meaning of this expression. Many render it, “whose eyes are shut,” that is, whose natural physical sight was inoperative, so that he saw nothing with his eyes, but was in a trance. The Hebrew word does not occur elsewhere in the OT. Whether the word is translated as “open” or “shut,” in either case the thought is stressed that Balaam’s physical sight was superseded by spiritual sight. The eyes remained open but sightless.
4. The Almighty. From Shaddai, a word concerning whose exact meaning there has been considerable discussion. “The Almighty” has been adopted as a conventional equivalent in translation, and is uniformly so rendered, perhaps owing to the adoption of the Latin Omnipotens by Jerome. Some Hebrew scholars think the name goes back to a root meaning “to be bountiful.” If so, the use of this word as a title for God indicates the fullness and richness of His grace. It points to Him also as the One who generously supplies all our needs.
Falling into a trance, but having his eyes open. Literally, “falling down and his eyes uncovered.” The words “into a trance” are supplied. The meaning seems to be that he fell down on his face on the ground, but that his eyes remained open. This twofold physical phenomenon implies control by the Holy Spirit. Compare the experience of Saul (1 Sam. 19:23, 24), of Ezekiel (Eze. 1:28), of Daniel (Dan. 8:17, 18; 10:8-19), of John (Rev. 1:17). Some also think of the experiences of Adam (Gen. 2:21) and Abraham (Gen. 15:12) as being similar. Balaam fell asleep, as it were, and God spoke to him while he was in that condition. It is certainly true that in whatever position his body may have been, whether prostrate or upright, his natural senses were held inoperative and his sensory perception was controlled by the Spirit of God.
5. Thy tents. The orderly arrangement of the camp quite overwhelmed the prophet.
6. Spread forth. Literally, “stretch out themselves.” Probably a reference to the long lines of tents with wide spaces between. The word translated “river” is also rendered “brook” (Lev. 23:40), “brooks” (Num. 21:14, 15), “stream” (Ex. 7:19), and “flood” (Joshua 24:3).
As gardens by the river’s side. Literally, “as gardens by a river.” Compare Isa. 58:11, “a watered garden,” and Isa. 1:30, “a garden that hath no water.” Balaam may have been thinking of the river Euphrates, which to him would be the river (see Isa. 7:20; also Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8).
Lign aloes. This tree was not known in Palestine, but was a native of southeastern Asia, whence its wood was exported. Elsewhere in the Bible the word refers to a perfume (Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17). Some commentators prefer “palms” or “poplars” to “aloes.”
Lord hath planted. Compare Isa. 60:21; 61:3; Ps. 80:8. In the OT, trees are often symbolic of God’s people.
Beside the waters. Oriental cedar trees do not usually grow in proximity to streams, but are often spoken of in Scripture as planted by the Lord (Ps. 104:16). Some commentators suggest that the two expressions, “which the Lord hath planted” and “beside the waters,” have been accidentally transposed. However this may be, Balaam sets forth, by the use of these metaphors, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the future prosperity that God planned for His people (see Ps. 65:9).
7. Pour the water. The figure is that of a man carrying his pails of water and abundantly watering his garden, a picture of peace and prosperity. Thus it was to be with Israel.
His seed. A reference to the prosperity of Israel in the Promised Land (see Deut. 8:7; 11:11), where they would be as treesplanted by the waters, and therefore prolific in fruit and seed (see Isa. 32:20; 44:4; 65: 22, 23).
Agag. Possibly a general designation for the kings of the Amalekites, as Pharaoh was of the Egyptians, and Abimelech of the Philistines (see on Gen. 20:2). It is possible that Balaam (through the Spirit) had Saul’s conquest of Agag in mind as an example of the future greatness of Israel among the nations, if she would but remain true to God (see Gen. 17:6; 35:11; 1 Sam. 15).
Be exalted. The supreme fulfillment of these words came during the days of David and Solomon, prefiguring the coming of the Messiah.
8. God brought him. All the imperial power of Egypt, mercilessly displayed, was unable to hold Israel in slavery when the time came for deliverance (Ex. 13:9; 14:8).
The strength. The same word appears in Job 22:25 as “plenty,” and again in Ps. 95:4 as “strength” (see also Num. 23:22). Some translators prefer “horns” instead of “strength,” and translate, “horns like unto the wild ox.”
The nations. Primarily, the destruction of the seven nations of the land of Canaan.
Pierce them. A picture of complete conquest, with Israel irresistible.
9. He couched. This follows as a natural figure from the expression in v. 8, “He shall eat up the nations his enemies” (see Num. 23:24; Gen. 49:9).
Stir him up. The great beasts of the forests resent being disturbed in their lairs, and are quick to show anger if this occurs.
Blessed. Compare the blessing of Jehovah upon the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 12:3), and that of Isaac pronounced upon his son Jacob (Gen. 27:29).
10. Balak’s anger was kindled. Undoubtedly he now realized to the full the deception under which Balaam had come to him.
Smote his hands. An expression of contempt and a sign of great anger (see Job 27:23; Lam. 2:15; Eze. 21:17). He may have thought Balaam in league with Israel and therefore making sport of him (Balak).
Three times. Balak had in mind the labor and expense involved in a threefold repetition of building the altars and offering the sacrifices, and the false hopes that had been raised each time.
11. Flee thou. This was an order to take himself home, as the very sight of him had become distasteful to the king.
The Lord. The heathen king had come to realize that Jehovah was greater than any earthly power that a magician might invoke.
13. What the Lord saith. In these words is revealed the insincerity of the prophet. He had gone to Balak in a spirit of stubbornness and avarice, knowing full well that his presence would raise false hopes in the king’s heart.
14. Advertise. An old English word meaning “to counsel,” “to inform” (see Ruth 4:4; Isa. 41:28; 44:26).
In the latter days. Literally, “in the end of the days,” a common OT expression denoting the far future, especially the days of the Messiah and His kingdom.
16. The words of God. An acknowledgment that the message came from God, and not by the practice of magic (see Amos 3:7; Jer. 23:18, 22).
The most High. First used of God in Gen. 14:18-22, in the story of Melchizedek. Moses also used the title in speaking of the division of the earth among the nations (Deut. 32:8; see Acts 17:26). The Hebrew expression is also found occasionally in the Psalms (Ps. 18:13; 78:35; 89:27). The term is not limited to sacred use, but is found in Gen. 40:17 as “uppermost,” in 1 Kings 9:8; 2 Chron. 7:21; Neh. 3:25; and Jer. 20:2 as “high,” in 2 Kings 18:17 as “upper,” and in Jer. 36:10 as “higher.”
17. I shall see him. A Messianic prediction. The host of Israel was before Balaam’s eyes, plainly visible from the elevated place on which he stood. The prophet was referring to the One to come whom he could see with his mind’s eye but not with his physical sight.
A Star. Often used as the symbol of a great personage (Job 38:7; Isa. 14:12; Dan. 8:10; Rev. 1:20; 2:28; 22:16).
A Sceptre. Compare the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49:10). “Sceptre” signifies “rulership,” from the root “to smite.” It is an instrument for smiting (Ex. 21:20, Heb.), of chastisement of a nation (Isa. 10:24; 30:31) or of an individual (Job 9:34; 21:9). It is also the shepherd’s rod (Ps. 23:4; Micah 7:14).
Smite. The conquest of the enemies of Israel is a token of the final destruction of the wicked and the establishing of Christ’s eternal kingdom (Ps. 2:9; 149:6-9; Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).
18. Edom shall be a possession. Compare Ps. 60:8. This was brought to pass in the time of David (2 Sam. 8:14), but the ultimate fulfillment awaits the establishment of Christ’s kingdom (Isa. 63:1-4).
Seir. The ancient name for the land of Edom (see on Gen. 36:6, 20). As the name also of the mountains of Edom it may suggest that the fortified places would not be able to withstand conquest (see 1 Chron. 18:13).
19. Shall have dominion. Though this was immediately fulfilled in David, the ultimate consummation can only be in Jesus Christ (Ps. 72:8).
The city. No city is named. Many Jewish commentators refer it to Rome, using the name “Edom” in reference to the Roman Empire, and the “city” as the imperial capital, Rome.
20. When he looked on Amalek. Presumably not by physical sight, but prophetically, as he stood on top of Mt. Peor (Num. 23:28; cf. Gen. 36:12; Ex. 17:8; Num. 14:25, 43).
Amalek. Many take this to be a general reference to all the enemies of Israel, Amalek being given as a type.
The first of the nations. Eliphaz the son of Esau was the ancestor of the Amalekites (Gen. 36:12). However, the word “first” may have reference to the Amalekites as the first people to attack the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt (Ex. 17:8). The word may be used of either rank or time.
Perish for ever. Destruction was decreed for the Amalekites when they attacked Israel (Ex. 17:14, 16). King Saul was later commanded to execute the sentence (1 Sam. 15:3, 15); and King David inflicted severe losses upon them (1 Sam. 30). They were apparently exterminated in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:42, 43; see also on Gen. 36:12).
21. The Kenites. These people, relatives of Jethro, were connected with the Midianites (Judges 1:16; Num. 10:29). They were also closely connected with Judah (Judges 1:16; 5:24; 1 Sam. 27:10).
Thy nest. A play on the word ken, “nest,” in relation to “Kenites.” This statement is also symbolic of reliance on human might and help (Obadiah 3).
22. Wasted. Little by little the Kenites were to diminish, despite their secure dwelling place.
Shall carry thee away. This may refer to action by Assyria against a tribal remnant of the Kenites (2 Kings 16:9).
23. Who shall live? Compare with Joel 2:11; Mal. 3:2. When God uses one nation to punish another, then the will of God is carried out, whether the nations involved recognize Him or not (Isa. 10:5-15; Dan. 4:30; 5:1-4).
24. Chittim. Kittim, from the ancient Greek Kition (Latin Citium), once a capital of Cyprus (see on Gen. 10:4; see also 1 Macc. 1:1). This same expression also occurs in Dan. 11:30 (see also Jer. 2:10; Eze. 27:6).
Asshur. It is generally held that Asshur and Eber together represent the great powers of the East. However, the exact meaning of Eber is uncertain, though some apply it to the Hebrews. For the application of Asshur to the Persian Empire see 1 Macc. 1:1, which refers to the conquests of Alexander the Great. Persia later conquered the territory of Assyria.
25. Returned to his place. See v. 11. Upon arriving at his home he conceived a scheme by which the downfall of Israel might be brought about (see ch. 31:16), and returned immediately to Moab to lay his plan before the king (PP 451). He died soon after in battle (ch. 31:8).
Balak also went his way. Perhaps to Kirjath-huzoth, as in ch. 22:39.
1. In Shittim. Literally, “acacia trees.” Inasmuch as the word here is in the plural and, in Hebrew, has the definite article with the preposition “in” or “among,” the expression may be translated, “Among the acacia trees.” It is from here that Joshua subsequently sent men to spy out the land of Canaan in the vicinity of Jericho (Joshua 2:1; 3:1). The more complete form of the name is Abel-Shittim (Num. 33:49). Its site, though not definitely known, is in the plains of Moab.
Whoredom. Literal whoredom was followed by its spiritual counterpart—the worship of idols. If the first step had not been taken, the second one would probably not have followed.
2. They called the people. That is, the Moabite women called the Israelites. Participation in the sacrificial feasts in honor of heathen gods was a natural sequel to literal whoredom (see Deut. 12:5, 7, 17, 18; Judges 9:27).
The people did eat. That is, of the sacrificial feast in honor of the god (see Ps. 106:28).
Bowed down. That is, the Moabite women and the Israelites they had invited. In thus eating of the sacrificial meal and bowing down to the heathen god they proclaimed themselves to be his followers (see Ex. 34:15).
4. Hang them up. The chiefs of the tribes, if guilty, were to be executed. Their position among the people and their participation in idolatry made them primarily responsible. Just what form the punishment took is difficult to say from the Hebrew. The same verb is used in Gen. 32:25 of the dislocation of Jacob’s thigh, except that here the causative form of the verb is used. It appears also in 2 Sam. 21:6 for the execution of Saul’s seven sons. Many commentators think the form of punishment here referred to was hanging or impalement.
Before the Lord. Probably in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, whose worship they had forsaken. There was no offering for sin such as theirs (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26); therefore their own blood was shed to pay the penalty for their transgression.
Against the sun. Literally, “in sight of the sun,” that is, publicly, as a warning to the entire camp (see 2 Sam. 12:12; Jer. 8:2).
Turned away. By so drastic a course the judges (see v. 5) would prove their zeal for God and His worship.
5. The judges of Israel. Probably the 70 elders (Num. 11:25; cf. Ex. 18:12). There is no record of the execution of the command to slay the partakers of the idolatrous feast.
Every one his men. Each chief or elder would carry out the sentence upon those under his authority and for whom he was responsible (see Ex. 18:25, 26; 32:27).
6. A Midianitish woman. Moab and Midian were apparently collaborating in the plot to destroy Israel. This woman was introduced for immoral purposes (see ch. 31:16).
In the sight of Moses. In deliberate disrespect for the authority of Moses.
7. Phinehas. See Ex. 6:25. He was apparently the only son of Eleazar, and would succeed his father in the office of high priest (1 Chron. 9:20).
He rose up. See Ps. 106:30.
Took a javelin. This word is always translated “spear” or “spears” elsewhere in the OT, except once as “lancets” (1 Kings 18:28) and once as “buckler” (1 Chron. 12:8).
8. The tent. The word here translated “tent” is not used elsewhere in the OT, and its meaning is therefore somewhat uncertain. It may refer to the inner part of the main tent, to which the women of the household would retire. Others suggest that it may refer to special tents erected by the Israelites when they joined with the Moabites and Midianites in the idolatrous worship of Baal.
So the plague was stayed. The indignation of Phinehas, translated into action, pleased the Lord (v. 11), and the plague was stayed. The zealous indignation of Phinehas became an example for later generations (1 Macc. 2:26; 4 Macc. 18:12).
9. Twenty and four thousand. Compare the 23,000 of 1 Cor. 10:8. The difference may be explained by the words “fell in one day.” Or, a thousand were perhaps slain by the judges on another day and so not included in Paul’s round number of those that “fell in one day.”
10. The Lord spake. After so deplorable an event Moses probably went into the sanctuary for communion with God.
11. Turned my wrath away. Compare Ps. 106:23; Jer. 18:20.
Zealous for my sake. Literally, “he was jealous of my jealousy.” His zeal culminated in action, to restore honor to God’s name and people. In his zeal for God’s name he was a fitting type of Christ (Ps. 69:9; John 2:17).
That I consumed not. That is, by the plague then sweeping through the ranks (see 1 Kings 18:19; 19:10; 2 Kings 10:16).
12. My covenant of peace. Literally, “my covenant, peace” (Isa. 54:10; Eze. 34:25; 37:26; Mal. 2:5). Undoubtedly this promise of peace included divine protection for Phinehas from the avenging wrath of the kinsmen of Zimri (see v. 14). Peace comes with a proper standing with God.
13. An everlasting priesthood. The original recipients of God’s covenant were the men of Levi (Jer. 33:21; Mal. 2:4, 8), owing, perhaps, to their zeal on a former occasion (Ex. 32:25-29). Christ on thecross made sure all the blessings of the covenant of peace to His spiritual seed (Ps. 89:28, 29). In due course Phinehas succeeded Eleazar as high priest (Judges 20:28). It is presumed that because of some outstanding sin that is not mentioned in the divine record, there was a temporary break in the succession in the time of Eli. The succession was restored to Zadok, a descendant of Phinehas, by King Solomon, and so continued in that family until the Greek period.
14. Zimri. This defiant sinner was a prince of the tribe of Simeon. For other instances of the name see 1 Kings 16:9; 1 Chron. 8:36. Zimri is derived from the word for chamois (Deut. 14:5).
15. The daughter of Zur. Compare ch. 31:8, where Zur is named as one of the five Midianite kings slain by the Israelites. Both Zimri and Cozbi were of prominent families, but this did not deter Phinehas, whose zeal for God made him lose sight of any personal danger that might have followed.
16. The Lord spake. How much time elapsed before the command was given by God, we are not told.
17. The Midianites. The Midianites had collaborated with the Moabites in the campaign of evil against Israel. As descendants of Abraham they should have manifested a different attitude toward God’s people. The Moabites did not completely escape due punishment, but, presumably because of the promise made to Lot (Deut. 2:9) or because their cup of sin was not yet full (see Gen. 15:16), they were passed over for the time being. Eventually, the Moabites were shut out even to the tenth generation from the congregation of Jehovah (Deut. 23:3, 4).
18. Beguiled you. By means of their women, at the evil suggestion of Balaam (ch. 31:16).
In the matter of Peor. By the worship of Baal-peor, into which they were inveigled by the women’s invitations to sacrificial feasts and the licentious rites that followed.
2. Take the sum. A similar command had been given to Moses and Aaron in chs. 1:2 and 4:1, 2. Aaron was now dead, and his son Eleazar now shares with Moses the responsibilities of leadership. In the first census a man was appointed of each tribe, as head of his father’s house, to cooperate with Moses and Aaron in the numbering of the people. Though such arrangement is not mentioned here, a similar plan was no doubt followed. The census of the people was to be the basis for dividing up the Promised Land (ch. 26:53). As yet, the children of Israel are on the steppes of Moab (ch. 22:1).
Their fathers’ house. The tribal relationship of a child based on paternal descent (see ch. 1:2).
3. The plains of Moab. The first census had taken place in the wilderness (ch. 1:1).
4. From twenty years old. The previous census had been taken 38 years before, and those numbered were now dead (v. 64).
5. Reuben, the eldest son. Literally, “Reuben, the first-born” (see Gen. 46:8, 9; Ex. 6:14; Num. 1:20; 1 Chron. 5:3).The four names listed in vs. 5 and 6 were distinguished families within the tribe of Reuben, and agree with the other lists in the references given.
7. The families. Translated “kindreds” in Ps. 22:27.
They that were numbered of them. The children of Reuben are nearly 3,000 less in number than they were 38 years previously (see ch. 1:21). The considerable decrease may have been due in part to the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, who were Reubenites (ch. 16:1).
8. The sons. Plural, even though there was but one son. It was the correct formula to use even though it did not fit this precise instance (see also Gen. 46:23; 1 Chron. 1:41; 2:7; and Num. 26:36).
10. A sign. A reference to ch. 16:38, where it is said that the personal censers of these men became a “sign.” The meaning here of the word thus translated is that of conspicuousness, in order to attract attention and constitute a warning. The general meaning is a “standard,” or “flag.”
11. The children of Korah. They continued to have a good name even in David’s time, and did not perish as did the descendants of Dathan and Abiram. The Korathites, a subdivision of the Levites, constituted one of the temple choirs. Compare the inscriptions to Ps. 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88.
12. Sons of Simeon. Compare the lists of Gen. 46:10; Ex. 6:15. Only Ohad is here omitted, perhaps because he had no children and his family had died out. In the lists of Genesis and Exodus, Nemuel is called Jemuel, and Jarib is called Jachin; but the form Nemuel is retained in 1 Chron. 4:24. With the passing of years the spelling of some names changed slightly, a common occurrence in most languages.
13. Zerah. Presumably the Zohar of Gen. 46:10 and Ex. 6:15.
Shaul. The son of a Canaanitish woman (Gen. 46:10).
14. Simeonites. A decrease of 37,100. They were given a portion of Judah’s inheritance (Joshua 19:9).
15. Zephon. This name appears as Ziphion in Gen. 46:16.
16. Ozni. In Gen. 46:16, spelled Ezbon.
17. Arod. Arodi in Gen. 46:16.
18. The children of Gad. Some 5,000 less than at the previous census (ch. 1:25).
19. Er and Onan died. See Gen. 38:7-10 for the account of their death.
20. The sons of Judah. Compare Gen. 46:12.
Shelah. The son of Judah by the daughter of Shuah (Gen. 38:2-5).
Pharez. Pharez and Zerah were twin sons of Judah by Tamar (Gen. 38:29, 30).
21. Hezron. Judah had five sons, but Er and Onan died without offspring. Hezron and Hamul take their places (Gen. 46:12).
22. The families of Judah. The tribe of Judah was more numerous than any other. Aside from Caleb the old generation was dead, but the new exceeded the old in number by nearly 2,000 persons (see ch. 1:27).
23. Tola. The names Tola and Pua are both those of dyes. “Tola” was the cochineal insect from which scarlet dye is obtained, and “Pua,” a species of madder, an herbaceous climbing plant with yellow flowers from which a dye was made. The family of Tola was most prolific, numbering 22,600 men in the time of David (1 Chron. 7:2).
24. Jashub. In Gen. 46:13 he is, for some reason, named Job.
25. The families of Issachar. Nearly 10,000 more than at the first census (ch. 1:29; 2:6).
26. Zebulun. There was no change in the list of families of Zebulun since they entered into Egypt (Gen. 46:14).
Elon. A Zebulonite by this name is found among the judges (Judges 12:11).
27. Zebulunites. Their numbers had increased greatly. Their gain was over 3,000 above the first census (ch. 1:31).
28. Joseph. Compare Gen. 46:20.
29. Sons of Manasseh. In ch. 32:39 the land of Gilead is given to Machir by Moses. Here, the terms of genealogy allude to that fact. Machir had no son, so the Machirites were afterward called Gileadites as well as Machirites. Their inheritance is mentioned in Joshua 17:1, 2.
30. Jeezer. In Joshua 17:2 it is given as Abiezer.
31. Shechem. For Shechem and Shemida (v. 32) compare Joshua 17:2.
33. Zelophehad. Compare Num. 27:1; 36:11; Joshua 17:3.
34. The families of Manasseh. This tribe registered an increase of more than 20,000 (ch. 1:35). Compare the prophecy of Jacob concerning the fruitfulness of the children of Joseph (Gen. 49:22).
35. Ephraim. The younger brother of Manasseh is mentioned next. Ephraim held the standard under which Manasseh encamped and marched (ch. 2:18).
Shuthelah. He is mentioned again in 1 Chron. 7:20.
Becher. Listed in 1 Chron. 7:20 as a clan with the name Bered.
Tahan. Perhaps Tohu of 1 Sam. 1:1.
37. The sons of Ephraim. In the previous census (ch. 1:33) they numbered 8,000 more than now.
38. Benjamin. This tribe, like that of Manasseh, was also under the standard of Ephraim. There were altogether seven families, of which five were named after sons, and two after grandsons. When the sons of Benjamin went into Egypt there were ten of them (Gen. 46:21), but here in Num. 26:38, 39 there are but five. Five had either died or left no offspring. Time had brought changes in the spelling of their names, and the genealogies in some places are difficult to reconcile.
Bela. Bela and Ashbel are named as in Genesis.
Ahiram. The Ehi of Gen. 46:21, and Aharah of 1 Chron. 8:1.
39. Shupham. He and his brother Hupham appear in Gen. 46:21 as Muppim and Huppim, in 1 Chron. 7:12 as Shuppim and Huppim, and in 1 Chron. 8:5 as Shephuphan and Huram.
40. Ard and Naaman. These two grandsons of Benjamin, the sons of Bela, became separate families in Israel. One of these grandsons was named after Ard his uncle, the youngest son of Benjamin, called Addar in 1 Chron. 8:3.
41. The sons of Benjamin. The record shows an increase of more than 10,000 above the previous reckoning (ch. 1:37).
42. Shuham. In Gen. 46:23 he is called Hushim; a variation in spelling, as is common in all languages. This is often true today with foreign names found in the United States. In the Bible such changes are by no means confined to the names of people. They may be found with trees, such as the almug of 1 Kings 10:11, 12, which is algum in 2 Chron. 2:8. The names of cities have likewise changed, an example being Joshua’s burial place, Timnath-serah in Joshua 24:30, but Timnath-heres in Judges 2:9.
44. Asher. Compare Gen. 46:17, where Jesui appears as Isui.
46. Sarah. In Gen. 46:17 the spelling Serah is given. The Hebrew root means “princess.”
47. The sons of Asher. This tribe reported a sturdy growth, being nearly 12,000 more than the census of ch. 1:41.
48. Naphtali. The names of Naphtali’s four sons have undergone no change since the record of Gen. 46:24.
50. The families of Naphtali. These are 8,000 less than the census of ch. 1:43.
51. The children of Israel. The census shows that the people numbered but 1,820 less than the census of ch. 1:46, taken 38 years previously.
53. Unto these. That is, the numbered families of the preceding verses. The Levites were not included.
An inheritance. The land of Canaan was to be apportioned to these families and never alienated from them. The extent of the territory received depended upon the number of persons in each tribe, and each inheritance would bear the name of the tribal ancestor.
54. Thou shalt give. Spoken to Moses, but not fully carried out until the whole of Canaan was taken (Joshua 13:15-23; 14:1-5). Therefore the words mean that Moses was to pass on the Lord’s command.
55. Divided by lot. Decision by lot is a method of going back to very ancient times. It was an established belief that the lot was decided by divine intervention, as noted in Prov. 16:33. The same method was used at times in the early church (Acts 1:23-26).
According to the names. Presumably the names were placed in a common receptacle and drawn out one at a time, as lots were called. Sometimes an adjustment of territory, depending upon the number ofpersons in a tribe, was made (Joshua 19:9, 47).
57. Levites. The census of the Levites was taken separately, as also at the first census (ch. 1:47).
58. Libnites. Thought to be connected with Libnah in southern Judah. The Libnites were descendants from Libni, the eldest son of Gershon.
Hebronites. Descended from Hebron, a son of Kohath (Ex. 6:18; Num. 3:19). It would seem natural to connect these people with the city called Hebron, near Libnah.
Mahlites. A daughter or a family of Zelophehad is named Mahlah in v. 33, but the Mahlites and Mushites were from the two sons of Merari called Mahali and Mushi (Ex. 6:19; Num. 3:20).
Korathites. See on v. 11. The Korathites are mentioned a number of times later on, in 1 Chron. 9:19 as doorkeepers, and in 2 Chron. 20:19 as choristers.
62. Were numbered. Compared with their number in the census of ch. 3:39 the count of the children of Levi showed an increase of 1,000.
64. Not a man of them. Compare Num. 14:23, 28, 29; Deut. 2:14, 15.
65. Caleb. God had promised to spare Caleb and Joshua, and allow them entrance into the land of Canaan on account of their courageous report (ch. 14:24, 30, 38). With these two men were Moses and Eleazar, as survivors of the first census, which was taken at Mount Sinai.
A generation had perished, aside from a few persons, under God’s protecting care, whom He had destined for greater things. Jehovah knows who are His (2 Tim. 2:19), ever keeping the names of His saints before Him (Ex. 33:17; Isa. 43:1) in the book of life (Rev. 3:5; Phil. 4:3). Caleb stands as a worthy example of loyalty to principle under the most adverse and trying circumstances.
1. The daughters of Zelophehad. First mentioned in ch. 26:33, and here mentioned again in connection with the laws of inheritance (see Joshua 17:3).
The son of Joseph. The daughters of Zelophehad traced their ancestry back to Joseph, and sought an inheritance in the land their forefather loved and requested as his final resting place (Gen. 50:25).
Mahlah. The daughter of Hammoleketh (1 Chron. 7:18).
Noah. Compare Neah, a place name (Joshua 19:13).
Hoglah. A town named Beth-hogla is mentioned in Joshua 15:6.
Milcah. Another person by the same name was Milcah, daughter of Haran and wife of Nahor (Gen. 11:27-29).
Tirzah. Also a place name, the capital of Israel in the reign of Baasha and his immediate successors (1 Kings 15:21). In cases such as these, where a town or city is also the name of a person, if would be natural to expect that the person bearing the name, or his descendants, had some connection with the place, either in founding it or as owning property there.
2. The door of the tabernacle. Evidently it was a custom for Moses, Eleazar, and the princes assembled as a jury (Ex. 18:25, 26), to meet at the door of the tabernacle. This would mean that Moses, should occasion arise, might easily approach and consult with God.
3. Our father died. Perhaps the sisters had drawn up a petition to be read to the assembled jury. They began by drawing attention to the fact that their father was included among those spoken of in ch. 26:64, 65 who had already reached their 20th year when they came out of the land of Egypt.
Not in the company. Their father, Zelophehad, was a Manassite. The fact that he was not, but apparently, then, might have been, in the company of Korah, suggests that members of various tribes participated in that revolt. Inasmuch as their father had not provoked the divine anger upon that occasion (ch. 16:11), the daughters felt that they should receive an inheritance.
Died in his own sin. That is, personal sin of which all were guilty and not a sinof open defiance or of willful neglect. For the mistakes of the fathers the children could in no wise be held accountable (Num. 16:27-30; Eze. 18:20).
Had no sons. The daughters were legitimate issue, and therefore felt that an inheritance portion should be granted them. Compare the experience of Absalom, who had no male issue (2 Sam. 18:18). Unless further provision were made, their family name and line would die out. Even if they should marry and have sons to perpetuate their family name, they would have no property to pass on to the sons.
4. A possession. They were pleading for a share of land along with others descended from Manasseh. Then the name of their father could be perpetuated—by a son of one of them taking the name of his mother’s grandfather, Hepher (v. 1). A general law to this effect was afterward adopted (Deut. 25:6).
5. Moses brought their cause. The decision of the court assembled was considered inadequate to settle the matter. Inasmuch as Moses alone did not wish to make the decision, he referred the matter to God, as he had been commanded on various occasions (Ex. 25:22; Num. 7:89).
7. Speak right. Jehovah approved the cause of the daughters of Zelophehad. The case came up again after the entry into Canaan (Joshua 17:3-6).
Give them. In Hebrew the word “them” is masculine, referring to the prospective offspring. The daughters were considered representatives of their own expected sons.
The inheritance of their father. The daughters stood in the place of their deceased father and were therefore heirs to his portion. They presented their claim, and received their father’s portion when Canaan was divided (Joshua 17:2, 3).
8. If a man die. This case was made a precedent, and a formal statute was drafted to meet similar cases in the future.
9. If he have no daughter. In vs. 9-11 we find the formal statement of the amendment to the law of inheritance based on the precedent of the case of the daughters of Zelophehad. Dispute between brethren in respect to property can be the cause of great bitterness (Luke 12:13).
12. Abarim. The word ‘Abarim is in the plural, and probably refers to the range of mountains that form the western rim of the Moabite tableland. Pisgah is an alternate name for Abarim, or refers to the northern section of the range (Deut. 3:27; 34:1). Mt. Nebo is a peak in the northern section (Deut. 32:49; 34:1). From the verb “to cross over,” the noun means “ford,” a place suitable for crossing over a stream. Thus the mountains were named ‘Abarim, literally “fords,” because of being situated by the fords across the Jordan River opposite Jericho (cf. Num. 21:11).
See the land. From the elevation of Nebo he commanded a full view of the land of Canaan spread beneath his feet (Deut. 3:17; 34:1-4). Moses already knew that he was not to enter the Promised Land (Num. 20:12). The privilege of seeing Canaan was in answer to his prayer (Deut. 3:24-27).
13. Gathered unto thy people. Seen on Gen. 15:15; 25:8. The vicinity of Nebo was to be his temporary place of burial.
As Aaron. God had spoken to Moses and Aaron upon Mt. Hor (ch. 20:23, 24).
14. Ye rebelled. Compare ch. 20:1, 12, 24. The sin of Moses and Aaron recorded in ch. 20:8-13 is here called rebellion.
15. Moses spake. The stature of Moses as a leader is seen in the fact that he lost sight of himself and began to plan for God’s people.
16. Let the Lord. Compare ch. 16:21. God is fully acquainted with the spirit, or disposition, of all men, and well able to evaluate a person’s fitness for service.
Over the congregation. To assume the office and authority that Moses was about to lay down.
17. Go out. The expressions “to go out” and “to come in” are used to denote the ordinary experiences of life (Deut. 28:26; 31:2). To cause to go out and to cause to come in suggest the relationship of the shepherd to his flock (John 10:3-9). For the thought of sheep without a shepherd, see 1 Kings 22:17; Eze. 34:5; Zech. 10:2; 13:7; Matt 9:36; Mark 6:34.
18. Take thee Joshua. Joshua had been in close attendance upon Moses (Ex. 24:13), and was therefore acquainted with his administration.
In whom is the spirit. Literally, “inwhom is spirit” (see v. 16). The reference here is to the richness of spirit necessary, held in the fear of God and under the control of the Holy Spirit, who alone can fit man for responsibility in the Lord’s work.
Lay thine hand. A ceremony of blessing (Gen. 48:14) and consecration (Num. 8:10), attended and followed by the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit (Deut. 34:9). In the Christian church the laying on of hands in the rite of ordination combines the three aspects of blessing, succession to office, and authority to teach (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 2 Tim. 1:6).
19. Set him before Eleazar. Eleazar had small part in this ceremony other than that of being a witness.
Before all the congregation. The ceremony was to be as public as possible, that there be no question or uncertainty as to Joshua’s authority.
Give him a charge. Literally, “command him” (see Deut. 31:7, 8, 14, 15, 23).
20. Some of thine honour. The word translated “honour” is often used of royal majesty and authority. Moses was to begin immediately to place some of his own responsibility and authority upon Joshua, that he might begin to exercise it concurrently with Moses.
Be obedient. That the people might begin to acknowledge and obey Joshua’s authority.
21. Before Eleazar. The authority of Joshua was in some respects less, apparently, than that of Moses. Moses received counsel directly from God, but Joshua was to go to the high priest as a mediator between him and God. The high priest, in turn, was to consult the Urim (Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8).
At his word. That is, the command of the high priest. Joshua was to lead the people, but under the direction of the high priest.
23. Laid his hands. Moses was anxious that Joshua should have a full measure of the wisdom and guidance that had been his. He was to be the shepherd of the flock, to bring rest and peace to the people.
1. The Lord spake. The Lord now sets forth His will with respect to certain offerings, those for the daily morning and evening services, for Sabbath days, for new moons.
2. My offering. Heb. qorban, from the root “to approach,” “to draw near,” that is, for a specific purpose. It is used of approaching a judge with a case, of coming to dedicate something, of coming to present an offering. Qorban therefore became a general term for any oblation (see Mark 7:11).
My bread. Literally, “my food.” The Hebrew reads, literally, “my offering, even my bread,” rather than “my offering, and my bread.” The heathen custom of offering food to their gods, presumably to be eaten by them, is a travesty of the custom of presenting the offerings of a repentant people to God as evidence of sorrow for sin and an earnest desire for forgiveness (see DA 28; Lev. 21:6, 8, 17, 21; 22:25; Mal. 1:7).
My sacrifices made by fire. Perhaps this refers particularly to the fat portions burned on the altar.
For a sweet savour. Compare Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; Num. 15:3; etc.
3. The offering made by fire. The “continual”service of the daily sacrifice (see on Ex. 29:38-40) with its promises (vs. 42, 43, 45) is particularly spoken of here.
Without spot. Perfection in the lamb was expressly required and emphasized (Heb. 9:14). This qualification had also been required of other sacrifices (Ex. 12:5; Lev. 1:3; Num. 19:2; 1 Peter 1:19).
A continual burnt offering. An abbreviated form “the daily,” or “continual,” is found in Dan. 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11. The continual aspect of this offering provided a striking parallel to the Lamb of God, whose one sacrifice is continually effective; He died once for all (Heb. 7:3; 10:12, 14).
4. Offer in the morning. Compare the words of Ps. 5:3, “In the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee,” which may originally have implied a sacrifice.
At even. Literally, “between the evenings” (see Ex. 12:6; Num. 9:3).
6. A continual burnt offering. That is, to be offered daily (Ex. 29:42). The continual burnt offering and the “perpetual incense” (Ex. 30:8) were similar to the morning and evening prayers of the Christian.
Ordained in mount Sinai. Literally, “made on Mt. Sinai.” That is where Moses received the sacrificial laws.
7. The drink offering. Also given in Mt. Sinai (Ex. 29:40).
In the holy place. Probably at the base of the altar of burnt offerings, which stood within the court (Ex. 29:42).
The strong wine. Heb. shekar. The drink offering, with this one exception, was made of ordinary wine, yayin. The quantity used for each lamb was about 1 qt. The word shekar is frequently used to denote a drink not made from grapes; it was usually made from grain or honey. For example, in Lev. 10:9, Aaron and his sons, were commanded not to drink yayin or shekar when they prepared to enter the tabernacle. Many commentators would insist that in this instance shekar must refer to the noblest and best wine. The Jewish commentators, by and large, speak of this instance of the use of shekar as excluding wine diluted with water, or as newly pressed wine.
8. The other lamb. That is, the one for the evening sacrifice. The preceding instructions are in regard to the morning lamb, but they apply also to the evening lamb. This sacrifice concluded the day’s offerings, no other being offered after it.
9. On the sabbath day. The Sabbath offering was in addition to the continual daily sacrifices made each weekday. This meant that on the Sabbath day the priests had double duties to perform. This may have been in the mind of the Lord when He said that “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless” (Matt. 12:5). In later years a song especially for the Sabbath day was sung to accompany the pouring out of the libation (Ps. 92).
Two tenth deals. About 4 qt. With the double burnt offerings on the Sabbath there was also a double portion of such other accessory elements as flour and wine. The command in respect to the drink offering to be presented together with the burnt offering is found in ch. 15:5.
10. Beside. That is, in addition to. The daily sacrifice was not to be omitted because of the additional Sabbath day offerings. The additional offerings enjoined were seven in number (Num. 28:11, 19, 26; 29:35-37).
11. In the beginnings. This may have been given by God to offset the idolatrous celebrations of each new moon, centering of course in the worship of the moon. Silver trumpets were then blown (ch. 10:2, 10). In later years business was suspended on this day (Amos 8:5; 1 Sam. 20:5; Isa. 1:13).
12. Three tenth deals. About 6 dry qt. (6.6 l.).
For a meat offering. For each bullock there was a precise quantity of flour (see ch. 15:9).
Two tenth deals. About 4 dry qt. (4.4 l.), the same as for a ram (ch. 15:6).
13. A several tenth deal. Compare with ch. 15:4. The cereal offering was to accompany each of the seven lambs each of the seven lambs mentioned in v. 11.
14. Their drink offerings. To accompany the various sacrifices.
Every month. At the new moons larger numbers of sacrifices were to be offered, and therefore more attention and work were demanded than was true even of the Sabbath days. Little time or opportunitywould remain for the child of God to be tempted by the idolatrous rites of the surrounding heathen at the times of new moon.
16. The passover. The only special offering enjoined for the day of the Passover, the 14th of Nisan, was the paschal lamb itself (Ex. 12:6; see also p. 709). This feast had not been observed since Israel left Kadesh-barnea 38 years before.
17. The fifteenth day. The evening of the 14th day was the feast of the Passover (Ex. 12:6, 14). The 15th day was the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:6). The paschal lamb was slain late in the afternoon of the 14th, and eaten—together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs—after sunset, that is, on the 15th.
18. No manner of servile work. Literally, “any work of tillage.” Any occupation that required laborious work was forbidden (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:7, 8).
19. A sacrifice. The particular sacrifice had not been prescribed previously (see Lev. 23:8). The sacrifices appointed are the same as those for the first day of each month (v. 11).
20. Their meat offering. Compare v. 12, where the same appointments were ordained for the first day of each month.
23. Beside. That is, in addition to the daily burnt sacrifice. They were all offered in the morning, subsequent to the daily morning sacrifice.
24. After this manner. All the special offerings listed in vs. 16-25, the same as those for the first day of every month, were thus offered on each day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:5-8).
25. On the seventh day. Compare Ex. 13:6; Lev. 23:7, 8. The first and last days of the feast were identical in their requirements.
26. The day of the firstfruits. This is an unusual phrase. It is also called “the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours” (Ex. 23:16), and “the feast of weeks” at the time of bringing in the first fruits of the wheat harvest (Ex. 34:22; Deut. 16:10; see also Lev. 23:15-21).
A new meat offering. Compare Lev. 23:16. The principal feature on this day was the new meal or cereal offering. It consisted of two loaves called the “firstfruits unto the Lord” (Lev. 23:17). These loaves were made of the first-ripe wheat. With these two loaves were offered seven male lambs, one young bullock, two rams, two he-lambs for a peace offering, and one male goat for a sin offering (Lev. 23:18).
After your weeks. That is, the seven weeks numbered from the first day of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:15-21).
28. Meat offering. Compare vs. 12, 20, dealing with the new moon and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
30. One kid. In addition to the one offered with the two lambs (Lev. 23:19).
31. Beside. The daily sacrifice was to be offered even though other sacrifices were enjoined (see vs. 10, 15, 23). The importance of the daily sacrifice was not to be held subordinate to the others.
1. An holy convocation. The seventh month, the first month of the civil year, had been specially set apart for religious purposes (Lev. 23:23-44), and had more days devoted to religious ordinances than any other month of the year. The holy convocation here indicated had already been ordained (Lev. 23:24, 25).
A day of blowing the trumpets. The blowing of the silver trumpets had already been enjoined on various occasions (see ch. 10:10), including the new moons. But the first day of the seventh month, or new year’s day of the civil calendar, was particularly the day for blowing them. The word “trumpets” does not appear either here or in Lev. 23:24. The term teruah, here translated “blowing the trumpets,” appears in Lev. 25:9 shopar, or “ram’s horn.”
2. Offer a burnt offering. In addition to all other sacrifices previously ordained for this day (Lev. 23:25). The sacrificial animals were less than those appointed for the festivals of Num. 28:19, 27, inasmuch as they were in addition to others for the same day.
3. Three tenth deals. About 6 qt. (6.6 l.), the usual portion for all sacrifices of this nature (ch. 15:6, 9).
4. One tenth deal. For vs. 4 and 5 compare ch. 28:15, 22, 30.
6. Burnt offering of the month. A burnt offering of two bullocks had previously been appointed for the beginning of each month (ch. 28:11, 12). That ordinance was not to be omitted on the first day of the seventh month.
Unto their manner. That is, in the order previously appointed: the daily burnt offering, then the sacrifices appointed for the first day of each month, and finally those specially appointed for the first day of the seventh month.
7. The tenth day. The Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27), the climax of the entire sacrificial system. The ritual for this great day is found in Lev. 16 and 23:26-32.
Afflict your souls. Literally, “exercise yourselves,” “be afflicted,” “be humbled.” This included fasting. This was and is the great annual fast strictly observed by orthodox Jews (cf. Lev. 16:29; 23:27-29, 32; Ps. 35:13; Isa. 58:3, 5; Acts 27:9).
Any work. The day was to be observed strictly as a sabbath of rest (Lev. 16:29, 31; 23:28-32).
9. Their meat offering. The meat offering was to be in the same proportions as noted in vs. 3, 4.
11. The sin offering of atonement. This is the ordinance from which the festival derived its special name (see Lev. 16). Note that Heb. 9:7-12, 23-28 is based on the description of Lev. 16. The blood of the sin offering of atonement was carried by the high priest into the most holy place. The blood of the bullock offered as a sin offering for the family of Aaron was also carried into the most holy place (Lev. 16:11, 14). Aside from these two, blood was never carried into the holy of holies.
The continual burnt offering. Again it is stressed that the various offerings mentioned were not to be omitted, not even on the great Day of Atonement. Even that high day was to begin with the continual burnt offering and the other offerings belonging to it. These would be followed by the sin offering of this verse. Then would come the sacrifice of atonement as given in Lev. 16.
12. On the fifteenth day. That is, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which began at sunset of the 14th day (Lev. 23:34, 35).This feast followed the fruit and grape harvest (Deut. 16:13). The seven days were a time of happiness and rejoicing before the Lord.
13. Thirteen young bullocks. The same type of sacrifice was enjoined for other festivals. But whereas 2 bullocks were sufficient for the other festivals, here 13 are commanded (ch. 28:11, 19, 27). Each day for 7 consecutive days, one bullock less was offered each day (vs. 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32). Thus on the 7th day 7 bullocks were offered, thus making 70 bullocks during the 7 days.
16. A sin offering. The requirements of the sin offering were not augmented.
17. On the second day. One bullock less than on the preceding day. The number of rams and lambs was not affected. The entire system of ordinances rested upon the daily sacrifice; no matter what sacrifices were added the daily offering was never put aside. Similarly, the Lamb of God can never be superseded. No function, no ordinance, no rule, can take the place of the Son of God, through whom alone is salvation from sin.
35. A solemn assembly. The eighth day was set apart as a day of solemn joy before Jehovah. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to restrain.” A noun form of the same root is translated “magistrate,” literally, “a possessor of restraint,” as in Judges 18:7. On this day the children of Israel were to refrain from all secular work, and devote their thoughts to Jehovah.
36. A burnt offering. A special sacrifice appointed for this day (see v. 13).
38. One goat for a sin offering. Whatever the festival a sin offering was required (chs. 28:15, 22, 30; 29:5; etc.). The people ever stood in need of forgiveness; it was important that they never lose sight of that fact.
39. These things ye shall do. The Lord had appointed certain festivals for certain seasons. These were to be carried out in the precise manner He had prescribed.
Beside your vows. In addition to all these regularly prescribed sacrifices, an individual might offer an additional burnt offering, either as a mark of gratitude to Jehovah or in performance of some vow.
Burnt offerings. Compare Lev. 22:18-21; Num. 15:1-13. The sacrifices of this chapter were enjoined above and beyond all burnt offerings, meat offerings, drink offerings, and peace offerings presented in fulfillment of special vows.
40. And Moses told. In the Hebrew Bible this is the first verse of ch. 30.
1. The heads of the tribes. The same men referred to in chs. 1:4, 16; 7:2; etc. Various expressions are used, “the heads of your tribes, and your elders” (Deut. 5:23), “the whole congregation of the children of Israel” (Joshua 18:1; 22:12), “the chief of all the people” (Judges 20:2), “all Israel” (1 Sam. 7:5), “all the princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes” (1 Chron. 28:1), “the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers” (2 Chron. 5:2), “the princes and the elders” (Ezra 10:8).
2. A vow. A pledge or promise to give something to God: a promise of personal service, as by Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 28:20; 31:13), Hannah’s consecration of her son (1 Sam. 1:11), Jephthah’s pledge concerning his daughter (Judges 11:30, 39).
A bond. An obligation, such as abstinence from wine, food, etc. (see 1 Sam. 14:24; Ps. 132:3; Acts 23:21). The Hebrew verb is used frequently with the meaning “to bind,” “to imprison,” “to harness.”
Not break his word. Literally, “not untie his pledged word,” in the sense of “to loosen,” “to set free from obligation,” “to make lawful,” “to profane.” To refrain from carrying out one’s solemn promises to God is an act of base ingratitude and sinful neglect (Deut. 23:21; Eccl. 5:4; Matt. 5:33). It is better that a man make no vow than to promise and not carry it out (Eccl. 5:2-5).
3. If a woman also vow. An unmarried woman was considered under her father’s control, and therefore not free to plan and decide without his counsel and consent. Elderly spinster women are not mentioned.
4. Hold his peace. Literally, “be silent,” or “make no objection.”
Her vows shall stand. It was not in the province of the father to disannul any part of a vow if he made no objection when he heard of it or heard his daughter express it.
5. In the day. That is, as soon as he hears.
Disallowed her. The father’s consent was necessary to make the vow, or pledge, binding. But if on becoming acquainted with the vow he said nothing, then his silence was looked upon as consent. If, however, the father made objection, then the young girl was free of her vow or bond, and under no necessity to carry it out.
6. Had at all an husband. That is, if she be married. The same would also apply to a betrothed woman still living in herfather’s house, for a betrothed husband had rights in connection with his betrothed wife. For example, if she committed adultery, she was stoned to death just as if the marriage had already taken place. She and all her possessions were considered as belonging to her betrothed husband (Deut. 22:23, 24; see also Matt. 1:19, 20).
When she vowed. Literally, “and her vows be upon her.” The vow might have been taken before her betrothal, and had the consent of her father at the time. Now she is betrothed and legally under her betrothed husband’s jurisdiction, and he might require her to renounce her vow.
8. If her husband. Compare with v. 5, where the same principle is applied to a daughter in her father’s home, as here to a betrothed wife in relation to her husband.
9. Of a widow. Both a widow and a divorced woman were free to make vows and carry them out. However, a widow or a divorcee who had returned to her father’s house and was under his protection would again be subject to his authority. The word translated “divorced” is, literally, “driven out.” The regulations of Deut. 24:1 are presupposed here.
11. Her vows. If the vow had been taken while the husband was alive, in one case, or before the woman was divorced in the other, and no objection was raised, then the vow must be carried out by the woman who made it. Changed marital status did not affect vows binding prior to the change.
12. Made them void. A widow or a divorcee was not held accountable for vows previously annulled by her husband.
14. Hold his peace. His silence, when he was fully aware of what she was doing, established and confirmed her vows.
15. Bear her iniquity. The full responsibility was his; she was free. For the nature of the guilt incurred and the ritual required to be free from it, see Lev. 5:4-10.
1. The Lord spake. As recorded in ch. 25:16-18, the command to smite the Midianites had already been given to Moses; now he was to organize the military expedition to execute God’s will. The Midianites, at the suggestion of Balaam, had led Israel into grievous sin, which in turn brought a plague from God upon His people.
2. Avenge. The offense of the Midianites had taken place during the leadership of Moses; he was now commissioned of God to punish the offenders before laying down his authority.
Afterward. God had previously spoken to Moses of his impending death (ch. 27:12, 13). In addition to the campaign against the Midianites, there remained the duty of passing on directions concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan (chs. 32 and 34), and making provision for the Levites (ch. 35:1-8).
3. Arm some of yourselves. Literally, “arm from among those with you, men.” Verse 2 speaks of avenging the children of Israel; this verse calls it the vengeance of Jehovah. Thus, closely, are the interests of God and His people identified.
4. A thousand. This small number suggests careful selection, inasmuch as some of the larger tribes could easily have supplied a much greater number.
All the tribes. Some think this may have included the Levites, not perhaps to bear arms, but as a service unit behind the front line. But the fact that the Levites received their share of the booty from that portion of it assigned to those who did not go to war (vs. 30, 37-41) seems to preclude such an idea.
5. Twelve thousand. Compare Judges 21:10, where the same number was sent against Jabesh-gilead. The idea conveyed in v. 5 is that the young men were levied. The number seems small in comparison with the Midianites, who had five kings with their armed forces.
6. Moses sent them. That is, commissioned them with authority to carry out God’s command.
Phinehas. We are not told whether Phinehas went as commander of the expedition, thereby superseding Joshua, or whether he went solely in his role as chief priest (see Joshua 22:13). His former deed of valor for the honor of God had no doubt given him a great reputation for decision and courage (ch. 25:8).
The holy instruments. That is, the sacred vessels. We are not told which vessels were taken. Some have suggested the ark (see Num. 10:33; Joshua 3:14; 6:8), others, the plate of gold that Aaron wore upon his head (Ex. 28:36). The word here translated “instruments” is the same as that rendered “vessels” in Num. 3:31. It may be permissible to think of the trumpets of the sanctuary as being “holy instruments.”
7. They warred. The Israelitish forces, presumably, crossed the border into Midianite territory and there engaged their forces.
Slew all the males. That is, of the attacking force, presumably males of military age. Another destruction of the Midianites is recorded in Judges 8:12, by Gideon. The wiping out of the entire male population would have led to the extinction of the nation; yet the Midianites appear again and again as violent enemies of Israel (Judges 6:1, 2; 7:14; 8:22; 9:17, 28; Isa. 60:6).
8. The kings of Midian. Various titles are used for these men: elders (ch. 22:4), and dukes or princes (Joshua 13:21).
Evi. See Joshua 13:21.
Rekem. See Joshua 13:21; 1 Chron. 2:43; 7:16. Also the name of a Benjamite town (Joshua 18:27).
Zur. See Num. 25:15; Joshua 13:21.
Hur. Given also as the name of an Israelite (Ex. 17:10), a relative of Caleb.
Balaam. His end was vastly different from the hope he had expressed for himself (Num. 23:10; Joshua 13:22).
9. Took all the women. It was an ancient custom to slay the men but not the women and children (Gen. 34:25; 1 Kings 11:16). The law of God later required, in certain instances, simply the slaying of the males, in other instances, the slaying of the whole population (Deut. 20:13, 14, 16).
Cattle. The word thus translated is from the verb “to be tongue-tied,” “to be dumb.” It often includes all the larger domesticated animals. The Midianites were famous for their camels (Judges 6:5), which are not mentioned separately here (see Ex. 9:25; 12:12; Ps. 135:8; Jer. 50:3).
10. Their cities. The destruction of these fortified places would tend to prevent a serious uprising later.
Goodly castles. Literally, “their encampments,” a reference to the circular encampments of nomadic tribes. See Gen. 25:16, where the same word is used.
11. The spoil. They had obtained possession of the spoil, as noted in v. 9, and now they carried it away.
12. The captives. The conquest of this tribe of Midianites was complete. The “captives” were the women and children; the “prey,” the camels, oxen, sheep, and goats; and the “spoil,” the precious metals, jewels, clothing, etc.
The congregation. Perhaps a reference to the 70 elders and the princes of the tribes, who represented the people.
The plains of Moab. From where they had set out to give battle to the Midianites (see chs. 22:1; 26:3, 63).
13. Went forth. This was a reception committee to welcome the victors and to make such arrangements as might be necessary for the cleansing, separation, or destruction of unclean things.
14. Moses was wroth. Particularly so, because unacceptable Midianite women had been brought as captives, including the very ones who had been the cause of the plague that had swept the camp (see vs. 15, 17).
Officers. Literally, “inspectors” or “overseers.”
15. Have ye saved? The punishment of the women, instruments used of Satan to bring sin into the camp of Israel, was implicit in the command to “avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites” (ch. 31:2). Compare the punishment of the Amalekite women (1 Sam. 15:3).
17. Kill every male. In order to reduce an idolatrous nation to impotency.
Every woman that hath known man. Probably including the very ones responsible for Israel’s debasement.
18. The women children. Since they were young and impressionable there was the possibility of their being weaned from idolatry and its unclean practices.
Keep alive. For a law that came later, the enactment of which may have reflected the capture of these women, see Deut. 21:10-14.
19. Abide without the camp. See ch. 19:9-11.
Purify. With water mingled with the ashes of a red heifer (see ch. 19). Ceremonial uncleanness was a serious matter for the children of Israel (see Mark 7:15).
20. Purify. This could be accomplished by the water of separation, or in running water (Lev. 11:32, 33). Both apparently came under the ordinance for those who had come into contact with dead bodies.
Made of skins. Including footwear, saddles, etc.
Goats’ hair. This would apply to tents (Ex. 25:4), and also to rugs and bedding (1 Sam. 19:13, 16).
22. The brass. That is, bronze or copper (see on Ex. 27:3).
Lead. See Jer. 6:29. The six metals here mentioned were common in Egypt and other ancient countries.
23. Fire. Water is not an adequate cleanser of metals, but fire is. The various utensils taken from the Midianites were unclean by reason of contact with dead bodies, and also because they had been used by the heathen.
25. The Lord spake. That is, after the ritual of purification had been completed and the men had entered camp.
26. The sum of the prey. Literally, “the head of the prey.” No mention is made of the spoil of jewels, precious metals, and cloth. These things afterward provided a voluntary oblation (vs. 50, 53).
27. Divide the prey. The entire camp had suffered at the hand of the Midianites; therefore it was proper that the ones who had remained in camp should also receive a share.
28. Levy a tribute. Literally, “lift up a fixed amount.” The word here translated “tribute” occurs elsewhere only in vs. 37-41. For other examples of the division of booty see Joshua 22:8; 1 Sam. 30:24, 25.
Sheep. The Hebrew word includes goats as well as sheep.
29. Give it unto Eleazar. As a tithe for the maintenance of the priests and the Levites (see ch. 18:21, 24, 26).
30. One portion of fifty. This was 2 per cent of the spoil apportioned to the congregation. The portion of the Levites was 320 maidens, 6,750 sheep and goats, 720 cattle, and 610 asses. The percentage was no doubt commanded in proportion to the relative number of Levites. The priests were not allowed, however, to marry non-Israelite wives (Lev. 21:14).
31. Moses and Eleazar. The command was given to Moses (v. 25), with Eleazar as assistant (v. 26). No mention is made here of “the chief fathers of the congregation” (v. 26). Undoubtedly they had full confidence in the integrity of Eleazar.
32. The rest of the prey. Perhaps better, “the rest that remains,” that is, of the booty. The spoil taken on the field of battle would be diminished by a number of factors; the slaughter of some animals for food, the death of some from the hardships of the march, from straying, and from disease.
48. The officers. Those in command made a personal report to Moses of the discharge of their responsibilities.
49. Lacketh not one man. When the roll was called of all who had been engaged in the expedition, it was revealed the Israelites had not suffered a single casualty. It had indeed been the battle of the Lord (see v. 3). No doubt it would have been regarded as a tragedy for men to lose their lives on the very threshold of the promised inheritance.
50. An oblation. Ornaments of precious metals were commonly worn by nomadic peoples. Often, the ornaments for the neck, wrists, and ankles were of silver or gold coins strung together (see Judges 8:24-26).
Every man. Each wished to offer something to Jehovah in thankfulness for the victory and safe return (see Gen. 14:20; 2 Sam. 8:11, 12; 1 Chron. 26:26, 27).
Jewels of gold. Better, “ornaments of gold” (see Gen. 24:53; Ex. 3:22).
Chains. For the ankles, and perhaps also for the upper part of the arms.
Bracelets. See Gen. 24:47; Eze. 16:11.
Rings. See Gen. 41:42; Esther 3:10.
Earrings. Very common among Eastern peoples, both ancient and modern.
To make an atonement. Perhaps in reference to the matter of v. 14, as well as to other personal incidents involving uncleanness and guilt that may have occurred during the battle.
53. Every man for himself. Undoubtedly there had been individual plundering and spoilation; but of all that each man received, he gladly gave a portion to God, in thankfulness of heart.
54. For a memorial. Much of the great quantity of gold was no doubt melted down and made into vessels for use in the sanctuary.
1. Children of Reuben. The Reubenites and the Gadites were encamped on the south side of the tabernacle, probably not as neighbors, but with the tribe of Simeon between them (ch. 2:10-14). Reuben was Jacob’s first-born, and is, therefore, mentioned first, according to tribal seniority. In the following verses Gad is mentioned first, since that tribe took the initiative in the matter of settling on the east side of the Jordan. The fact of their having lived close together for 38 years tended to influence them to stay together in their permanent location.
Great multitude of cattle. That is, in comparison with the rest of the Israelites. How they came to be so rich in cattle is not stated (see Judges 5:16, 17).
The land of Jazer. This name appears elsewhere as that of a town. It is thought to have been north or northwest of Rabbath Ammon.
The land of Gilead. The name of a district mentioned first in Gen. 37:25, lying north and south of the brook Jabbok. It was noted for its fertile soil. The name Gilead is sometimes used to denote all the territory occupied by Israel east of the Jordan.
A place for cattle. Included in this territory was Bashan, noted for its fine cattle (see Ps. 22:12).
2. Gad. Gad takes the initiative in proposing their idea. No mention is made of Manasseh, who also had much cattle and shared in the country east of Jordan with Gad and Reuben (see Deut. 3:12, 13; 4:43; 29:8; Joshua 12:6; 13:29, 31; 14:3; 18:7).
3. Ataroth. Assigned to Gad (v. 34).
Dibon. In the kingdom of Sihon (ch. 21:30), and also given to Gad (v. 34).
Jazer. See v. 1. Another place belonging to Gad (v. 34).
Nimrah. Called Beth-nimrah in v. 36, meaning, perhaps, “the place of the leopard.”
Heshbon. The capital of Sihon, king of the Amorites (ch. 21:26-28), and allotted to the Reubenites (v. 37).
Elealeh. Mentioned as adjacent to Heshbon (Num. 32:37; Isa. 15:4; 16:9; Jer. 48:34). Probably the modern el-‘Al, just northeast of Heshbon.
Shebam. Also given as Shibmah (v. 38) and Sibmah (Isa. 16:8, 9; Jer. 48:32). It was famous for its vineyards.
Nebo. Allotted to the Reubenites (v. 38).
Beon. In v. 38 we find Baal-meon, which was changed to Beon by the Israelites in order to eliminate the name of Baal. Later, when it fell into the hands of the Moabites, they restored the full name, given as Beth-meon (Jer. 48:23). It is called Beth-baal-meon in Joshua 13:17. It was probably assigned to the Reubenites. Its ruins are known as Ma‘in today, about 5 mi. south of Mt. Nebo.
4. The Lord smote. That is, with the intention of giving it to His people for an inheritance (ch. 21:24, 25).
6. Shall ye sit here? In view of the comparative ease with which the country east of the Jordan had been conquered, Gad and Reuben no doubt thought the country west of Jordan would be rapidly occupied.
7. Discourage. Literally, “oppose,” “alienate.” Moses feared that the action of the two tribes would lead the other tribes to refuse to cross the Jordan. The effect would then be much like that of the faithless report of the spies that resulted in a whole generation perishing in the wilderness.
8. Your fathers. Not merely the ancestors of the two tribes, but of the whole nation.
9. The valley of Eshcol. See ch. 13:21-23. The spies turned the hearts of Israel from entering the Land of Promise, depicting the enemy as altogether too strong for them to cope with (ch. 13:31).
11. None of the men. See ch. 14:22, 23, 29, 35.
12. The Kenezite. See ch. 14:24. The same name is given in Joshua 14:6, 14. It is derived from Kenaz (see Gen. 36:15, 42; 1 Chron. 1:36, 53). It is possible that Kenaz was a common ancestor of Othniel and Caleb, from whom Othniel’s father took the name. Jephunneh is called a Kenezite (Joshua 14:14).
Wholly. That is, “altogether” (see ch. 14:24, 30, 38).
14. An increase of sinful men. Better, “a brood of sinful men.” The Hebrew word here translated “increase” is not found elsewhere in the OT. Moses was greatly disturbed by this appeal.
15. If ye turn away. As their fathers had done, and perished in the wilderness.
Destroy all this people. The people might then refuse to go over Jordan and consolidate their claim on Canaan. After their release from military service by Joshua, with his blessing, these same tribes precipitated an incident that led their brethren to fear, though without warrant, a visitation of God’s wrath (see Joshua 22:1-29).
16. Sheepfolds. Constructed of dry stone courses, field stones gathered together, and with no roof.
Cities. Probably repaired Amorite dwellings already on the ground. A weakness of this plan was that their women and children and their cattle and sheep could scarcely be left in newly conquered, hostile territory without a strong, well-armed force to protect them.
17. Ready armed. Literally, “equipped for war, hastening.” This was a promise not to delay in any way the crossing of the Jordan, but to act as a forward unit or advance guard before the main host (see Deut. 3:18; Joshua 4:12).
The inhabitants. The Amorites and Moabites, who previously occupied the territory (ch. 21:26).
18. Until. A promise to stay by their duty to the nation until the conquest of Canaan was completed. According to Deut. 33:21 Gad had secured his first part, that is, the territory of Sihon and Og, and executed the command of the Lord—they kept their promise to help their brethren occupy Canaan.
19. We will not inherit. They disavow any desire to claim inheritance west of Jordan.
This side Jordan. The same Hebrew word is translated “yonder side” and also “this side.” It is from the verb “to pass over,” “to go through.” The derived noun means “the region beyond,” and in the plural masculine form is applied to the Hebrews.
20. Before the Lord. Jehovah is looked upon as a God of battles, going before the marching nation to confound their enemies (see Num. 21:14; Joshua 4:5, 11-13; 6:8, 9; Judges 5:23).
22. Guiltless. The word thus translated is from the verb “to be clean,” “to be exempt from punishment.” The second meaning is preferable here.
Your possession before the Lord. That is, with the full approval of the Lord.
23. Your sin will find you out. Literally, “and know ye your sin which will find you.” God expressed the same idea in addressing Cain: “Sin lieth at the door” (Gen. 4:7).
25. As my lord commandeth. A typically Eastern touch, as that which Moses stated was precisely what they themselves had suggested (v. 17).
26. Cities of Gilead. Such fortified places as were formerly occupied by the enemy.
27. Every man armed. For garrison duty east of Jordan and an expeditionary force to accompany the main body of the Israelites over the Jordan.
28. Commanded Eleazar. Moses knew he would not cross the Jordan, and therefore placed upon Eleazar and Joshua the responsibility to see that Reuben and Gad carried out their promises (see Joshua 1:13, 14; 22:1-6).
29. The land of Gilead. The whole of Gilead was scarcely in their possession at this point. They were fortifying a number of cities, not only as safe refuges for their families, but also as strong points from which to complete subjection of the land.
30. Pass over. Their promise as recorded in v. 17 must be honorably carried out; otherwise they would be compelled to live on the west side of the Jordan.
31. So will we do. They reiterate and confirm their promise to Moses (v. 25), invoking the name of Jehovah as evidence of their good faith.
32. This side Jordan. Confirming their former promises in the presence of Eleazar and Joshua, they speak of the east side of Jordan as “this side,” for they were in the land of Gilead.
33. Half the tribe of Manasseh. These people were known as warriors (Joshua 17:1); and inasmuch as there was room, they too were granted a possession in Gilead. It is evident from v. 39 that the half tribe of Manasseh had cooperated in the conquest of Gilead, and perhaps unaided had subdued certain portions.
Sihon. The territories of Sihon and Og were the first to be taken over by the Israelites, and the people taken subjected (see Num. 21:24, 29; 2 Kings 15:29).
34. Gad built. The list of cities named in vs. 34-38 corresponds closely with that of v. 3. An additional and more complete list is found in Joshua 13:24-28.
Dibon. The place where the Moabite stone was found in 1868. This city constantly changed hands. Here it is allotted to Gad. In Joshua 13:17 it is listed for Reuben (see also Num. 21:30; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 48:18, 22).
The building of these cities must have been more of the nature of repairing the ravages of war. The inhabitants were destroyed, but not the cities (Deut. 2:34, 35). Compare this with the experience of Jeroboam, who is recorded as having “built” Shechem, when actually he rebuilt it (1 Kings 12:25). Similarly, Azariah “built” Elath upon restoring it to Judah (2 Kings 14:22).
Ataroth. The modern Attarus, about 7 mi. to the north of Dibon, the modern Dhiban.
Aroer. An Amorite city conquered by Sihon (Deut. 2:36; 3:12; 4:48). The modern name of this city is ’Arā‘ir, which is situated near the river Arnon, 3 mi. south of the modern Dhiban. The same name is found in Joshua 13:25; Judges 11:33; 1 Sam. 30:28.
35. Atroth, Shophan. Not yet identified. Perhaps a single city, Atroth-Shophan.
Jaazer. Meaning “helpful.” Equivalent to the Jazer of v. 3.
Jogbehah. Now Jubeihât, some 6 mi. northwest of Rabbath Ammon.
36. Beth-nimrah. Perhaps the modern Tell el-Bleibil, 6 mi. east of the Jordan and some 8 mi. north of the Dead Sea.
Beth-haran. Said by some to be the modern Tell Iktanû, some 7 mi. northeast of the mouth of the Jordan River.
Fenced cities. For the protection of the women and children to be left behind with their garrisons.
Folds for sheep. These would be built within the protection of the outer fortifications. This was excellent country for grazing, as the Moabites were fully aware (2 Kings 3:4).
37. Reuben built. Again the idea is that of repairing and making habitable and secure, cities that had been damaged in war.
Heshbon. Another city that had manychanges of fortune. In ch. 21:25 it is in the possession of the Amorites. In Joshua 13:17, as here, Reuben has control of it. In Joshua 21:39 Gad is the possessor. Moab again possesses it according to Isa. 15:4; 16:9; Jer. 48:2. Eventually it comes under the power of the children of Ammon (Jer. 49:1-3).
Kirjathaim. Recorded as the city of a giant people called Emims (Gen. 14:5). Probably el-Qereiyât, between Dhiban and the Dead Sea.
38. Nebo. Probably related to the Hebrew words “to prophesy” and “prophet.”
Probably Khirbet el-Mekhaiyet, about 5 mi. southwest of Heshbon and near Mt. Nebo, where Moses died (see Deut. 32:49), east of the north end of the Dead Sea.
Names being changed. Literally, “changed of name.” The names of Nebo and Baal-meon were changed because they stood for the gods whose worship was centered there. The ancient names, however, persisted (Joshua 13:17; Eze. 25:9).
Builded. Again, in the sense of repairing or rebuilding (see 1 Kings 9:17; 2 Chron. 11:6).
39. Gilead. Perhaps the reference here is to the northern part only, and not in the more general sense as in vs. 1, 26, 29.
41. Jair. Jair was the son of Segub, the son of Hezron, who had married the daughter of Machir (1 Chron. 2:21, 22), a son of Manasseh.
Havoth-jair. Literally, “the towns of Jair,” as in Joshua 13:30. These, or possibly other, groups of unwalled villages are mentioned in Judges 10:4; 1 Kings 4:13; 1 Chron. 2:22, 23.
42. Nobah. Compare Judges 8:11. Evidently a prominent prince.
Kenath. Identified with Qanawât, some 60 mi. due east of the Sea of Galilee (see 1 Chron. 2:23).
Called it Nobah. It is probable that 60 towns were taken. Jair, as the leader of the expedition, kept 23 for himself and divided the remainder among those who took part with him in the campaign. Nobah was one of these.
1. The journeys. From the Hebrew verb “to pull up,” as tent pegs. Reference is to stages from one camp to another, as they “pulled up” stakes and set out on their way to a new campsite.
With their armies. Literally, “according to their hosts,” suggesting an orderly arrangement (see Ex. 12:41, 51; 13:18).
Under the hand of Moses and Aaron. See Ex. 12:1, 28, 50. These two men fulfilled their tasks as appointed shepherds and ministers of the flock.
2. Moses wrote. Moses was the chronicler of these events, and wrote “by the commandment of the Lord” (see Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Deut. 31:9, 24).
3. Rameses. Also mentioned in Gen. 47:11; see on Ex. 1:11; 12:37.
4. Their firstborn. See Ex. 12:29-33.
Upon their gods. See on Ex. 7:17; 8:2; 12:12; see also Isa. 19:1; Jer. 43:12. The Lord took similar action later in respect to the gods of Babylon (Isa. 21:9).
5. Succoth. See on Ex. 12:37.
6. Etham. See on Ex. 13:20.
7. Pi-hahiroth. For the places mentioned in this verse see on Ex. 14:2.
8. Midst of the sea. See on Ex. 14:17-30.
Marah. The word thus translated is from the verb “to be bitter,” “to be distressed.” See on Ex. 15:23-25.
9. Elim. See on Ex. 15:27. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to be first,” “to be strong.” The noun is applied to the oak tree, the pine, and also to thickets of trees where idol worship was carried on.
11. Wilderness of Sin. This is not to be confused with the Wilderness of Zin mentioned in ch. 13:21. See on Ex. 16:1.
13. Dophkah. Neither Dophkah nor Alush is mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, and neither can be identified with any known place today.
14. Rephidim. See on Ex. 17:1, 8 and 19:2.
No water … to drink. See on Ex. 17:2-6. Rephidim was also a place of trial from the Amalekites (see on Ex. 17:8-12; see also 1 Sam. 15:2), who inflicted losses upon stragglers but were defeated by Joshua and his forces.
15. Wilderness of Sinai. See on Ex. 3:1; 19:1.
Kibroth-hattaavah. Literally, “the graves of lust” (see ch. 11:34). Many died here for grumbling about the manna. This was also the place where God bestowed His Spirit upon the 70 elders.
17. Hazeroth. Compare chs. 11:35; 12:1, 10 for Miriam and Aaron’s envious attitude toward Moses.
18. Rithmah. The name of a plant. See 1 Kings 19:5, where the same Hebrew root is translated “juniper” (cf. Job 30:4). Some have identified Rithmah with Wadi Retemat, but that is not certain.
19. Rimmon-parez. Not used elsewhere in the OT. The second half of the name appears often in other combinations (2 Sam. 5:20; 6:8; 1 Chron. 13:11; 14:11).
20. Libnah. Presumably an encampment not near any settled community. The root word means “to be white,” and the name here may refer to limestone formations in the vicinity. The personal name Laban is probably a variant from this same root. See Joshua 10:29; 15:42 for another town of the same name. The Hebrew word for “moon” is from the same root, probably in reference to its pale light. The name may possibly indicate some connection with moon worship.
21. Rissah. Names are easily corrupted in pronunciation and spelling. Some have suggested that Rissah is the same as Rasa, some 16 mi. from Ezion-geber.
22. Kehelathah. Nothing is known with certainty regarding the places mentioned in vs. 22-28.
29. Hashmonah. Some identify this with Heshmon (Joshua 15:27).
30. Moseroth. Probably the Mosera of Deut. 10:6, where the death and burial of Aaron and the succession of Eleazar to his office occurred.
31. Bene-jaakan. Location unknown (see Deut. 10:6).
32. Hor-hagidgad. See Deut. 10:7 where a different spelling probably denotes the same place. Location unknown.
33. Jotbathah. It has been suggested that the Jotbah of 2 Kings 21:19 may be the same place (see also Deut. 10:7).
34. Ebronah. Location unknown.
35 Ezion-gaber. Compare Deut. 2:8; 1 Kings 9:26; 22:48; 2 Chron. 8:17; 20:36. A harbor for the merchant ships of King Solomon at the northern end of the Gulf of ‘Aqaba. It is now known as Tell el-Kheleifeh.
36. Kadesh. See ch. 20:1. This Kadesh is the same as Kadesh-barnea, on the border of Canaan.
40. King Arad. Compare ch. 21:1. This verse seems out of place in this context.
41. Zalmonah. Location unknown; compare Mt. Zalmon (Judges 9:48) and Salmon (Ps. 68:14).
42. Punon. See Gen. 36:41 and 1 Chron. 1:52 for the name Pinon, probably a variant spelling of the same name. Identified with the modern Feinân, 25 mi. directly south of the Dead Sea.
45. Dibon-gad. See chs. 21:30; 32:34. Some stages of the Exodus are difficult to follow.
46. Almon-diblathaim. Perhaps the same as the Beth-diblathaim of Jer. 48:22.
47. Abarim. See on ch. 21:11; see also Num. 27:12; cf. Jer. 48:22.
49. Beth-jesimoth. See Joshua 12:3; 13:20; Eze. 25:9. The modern Tell el-‘Azeimeh, between Mt. Nebo and the Jordan, has been suggested as the site of this place.
Abel-shittim. See ch. 25:1. Possibly the modern Tell el-Hammâm, some 5 mi. north of Beth-jeshimoth.
50. The Lord spake. Definite instructions were given in respect to the law of possession of the land of Canaan.
51. When ye are passed over. Compare Num. 34:2; 35:10; Deut. 11:31; 18:9.
52. Ye shall drive out. The former inhabitants could not b,e allowed to remain in the land, as they were devoted to idolatry and would corrupt Israel (see Ex. 23:33; Deut. 20:16-18).
Pictures. Literally, “figured stones.” This may refer to carved figures on the pillars inside their idol temples, such as are common in India today.
High places. A reference to the heathen sanctuaries and altars built on the high hills.
53. Ye shall dispossess. For the procedure and process see Ex. 23:29, 30; Deut. 7:22.
54. By lot. For directions see ch. 26:53-55.
Every man’s inheritance. Even to the individual family inheritance.
55. Pricks. Compare the language of Joshua 23:13 and Eze. 28:24, and of Paul (2 Cor. 12:7).
Vex you. They were to be a continual source of uneasiness (see Judges 2:18; 4:3; 6:6).
56. I shall do unto you. As a matter of fact, the idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan were never entirely exterminated. Their baleful influence continued throughout the history of Israel, who also came before God in judgment (see Judges 3:8, 14; 6:2).
1. The Lord spake. In the same place as when He spoke to Moses about the settlement in Canaan (ch. 33:50), for there had been no move since then.
2. When ye come. That is, into the territory between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea (see Num. 32:32; Joshua 22:11, 32).
3. Your south quarter. Literally, “your south side.”
The salt sea. The Dead Sea, where the eastern and southern borders met. In Eze. 47:18 the prophet calls this the “east sea” (see also Gen. 14:3; Deut. 3:17; 4:49).
4. Your border shall turn. That is, the boundary line was to take a southwesterly direction.
The ascent of Akrabbim. That is, “the pass of the scorpions,” suggesting that scorpions were numerous in that neighborhood (see Joshua 15:3; Judges 1:36). Generally held to be Naqb es-Safa, a pass leading northwest from the Arabah, 15 mi. long.
Zin. The Wilderness of Zin may have received its name from this place. It is mentioned only here and in Joshua 15:3.
South to Kadesh-barnea. See on ch. 13:17, 32.
Hazar-addar. Compare Joshua 15:3, where the name of this site is given in a shorter form as Adar, with Hezron as a separate place. It has been identified with Khirbet el-Qudeirat.
Azmon. This too is unidentified. Some commentators suggest the modern ‘Ain el-Qoseimeh.
5. Fetch a compass. Literally, “make a turn,” that is, in a more westerly direction.
The river of Egypt. Not the river Nile, but the Wadi el-‘Arish, which was to form the western boundary of Israel, until it reached the Mediterranean Sea about 50 mi. below Gaza. This was to be their border with Egypt.
6. Great sea. The Mediterranean.
7. Mount Hor. Not the Mt. Hor on the border of Edom (chs. 20:22; 33:38), where Aaron died. The site of this mountain is unknown; some commentators identify it with a spur of Mt. Libanus, or Mt. Lebanon.
8. The entrance of Hamath. Either the Orontes valley or modern Lebweh, 70 mi. southwest of Hamath, in the same valley. The word translated “entrance” is thought to be part of a distinct place name, and not to refer to Hamath itself. Either Lebweh or the Orontes valley might appropriately be designated “the entrance of Hamath,” as one approached Hamath from the south.
9. Ziphron. No sure identification with any modern place is known. Some suggest Sibraim in Eze. 47:16 as a variant spelling of the same name.
Hazar-enan. This marked the terminus of the northern boundary, being its northeast corner (see Eze. 47:17; 48:1). The place has been tentatively identified with Qaryatein. The Hebrew name signifies “the court of the spring,” referring, presumably, to an enclosed spring of water.
10. Shepham. Site unknown. It marked the southern tip of the eastern boundary.
11. Riblah. No doubt near the river Jordan, but its location is unknown.
Ain. Literally, “spring.” As no other place name is associated with the word “spring,” it is impossible to identify Ain.
Chinnereth. The Sea of Galilee. The name Chinnereth probably comes from the place named in Joshua 19:35 (see also Deut. 3:17). The words, “the sides of,” refer to the hilly slopes on the northeast of the Sea of Galilee. A better rendering would be “slope.” The RSV reads “shoulder.”
12. The border. That is, the eastern boundary.
13. Nine tribes. Two and a half tribes settled on the other side of Jordan (see vs. 14, 15).
15. On this side Jordan. Better, “beyond the Jordan.”
17. These are the names. Responsible men were appointed whose decisions would be respected (see ch. 26:54, 55). Note that Eleazar and Joshua were to supervise the division of the land in the presence of God at the door of the tabernacle (Joshua 18:6, 8, 10; 19:51).
18. One prince of every tribe. Men of authority, and who were respected, were associated with Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua, the commander in chief of the army. Impartiality and equity in the division of the territory were thus assured.
20. Shemuel. The same name as Samuel (see 1 Sam. 1:20; 1 Chron. 7:2).
22. Bukki. For the same name see Ezra 7:4, and for a different spelling see 1 Chron. 25:4, 13.
23. Hanniel. See 1 Chron. 7:39.
24. Kemuel. A name found elsewhere but belonging to other persons (Gen. 22:21; 1 Chron. 27:17).
26. Paltiel. See 2 Sam. 3:15.
The exactness with which Inspiration has preserved a record of the boundaries of the allotments of land made to the various tribes emphasizes the orderly way in which provision is to be made for the work of God. Nothing is to be left to chance; everything is to be carefully planned and executed.
2. Cities to dwell in. The Levites were not given land, vineyards, olive groves, etc., as an inheritance. It was fitting, however, that they should have suitable dwelling houses; therefore cities were set aside for their homes (Lev. 25:32).
Suburbs. Literally, “open land,” or “pasture land,” from the verb “to drive out.” Here reference is to open countryside outside the city, to which cattle could be driven for grazing or that could be used for gardens. “Suburbs” as here used is equivalent to the English word “common,” referring to the open space common to the community (see Eze. 48:10-20).
3. Cattle. The large animals, such as bullocks and camels.
Beasts. This may refer to sheep and goats, or may include all their livestock.
4. A thousand cubits. About 1/4 of a mi. (0.44 km.). Outside the city limits open land was provided for their cattle, their private gardens, and recreational parks, and for burial purposes.
6. Six cities for refuge. Three in Canaan, and three on the east side of Jordan (see Num. 35:14; Deut. 4:43; Joshua 20:7, 8).
Flee. The cities of refuge were a sanctuary, and thus a type of Christ, who shelters the sinner who flees to Him in faith (see Ex. 21:13; Deut. 19:2-9; Ps. 46:1; 142:5; Isa. 4:6; Rom. 8:1, 33, 34; Phil. 3:9; Heb. 6:18, 19).
7. Forty and eight. Compare Joshua 21:41.
8. According to his inheritance. The cities would be distributed according to population (see Num. 26:54; 33:54; Joshua 21:16-32).
11. Unawares. From a word whose root means “to go astray,” “to commit an error.” The word here used means, literally, “by mistake,” “in error” (see Joshua 20:3; Eccl. 5:6). The right of sanctuary was recognized by most nations from remote antiquity.
12. The avenger. From a word whose root generally means “to redeem,” “to act as a kinsman,” implying close personal relationship. The duties of this “kinsman-redeemer” became both varied and many. One of his duties was to avenge a relative’s murder. He was also to contract a levirate marriage (Ruth 3:13), to purchase a kinsman from slavery into which unfortunate circumstances had forced him (Lev. 25:47, 48), to prevent the alienation of family property (Jer. 32:8-12), and to buy back such property as may have fallen into the hands of others (Lev. 25:25).
Stand before the congregation. Just what duties the congregation performed is not stated in detail. But undoubtedly the whole procedure was forensic, with presentation of evidence, discussion, and decision by jury (see Num. 27:2; Deut. 19:17; Joshua 20:6). Note that Deut. 19:12 has the expression “the elders of his city.”
13. Six cities. The six cities set aside were a sure refuge, with the roads leading to them kept in good repair.
15. These six cities. See Joshua 20:7, 8 for their names.
Sojourner. Or, “settler,” referring perhaps to a person who had become attached to a Hebrew family in some more permanent way.
16. Instrument of iron. This phrase not only includes such weapons as swords and spears but various instruments made of iron, the primary function of which was not in war but in peaceful pursuits. It was the intent to kill, whether it was premeditated or was due to sudden anger, that is meant here.
17. With throwing a stone. Literally, “with a stone of the hand,” meaning a stone large enough to be lifted and thrown so as to cause death (see Ex. 21:18).
18. Hand weapon of wood. Such as a shepherd’s staff, or club, a walking stick, etc.
19. Revenger. The goel or “kinsman” (see on v. 12).
Meeteth him. That is, outside the city of refuge.
20. Thrust him. Better, “if he push him,” that is, from some elevated place whence a fall would cause death (see Eze. 34:21).
21. His hand. That is, his fist.
22. Without enmity. That is, in a sudden rise of anger, under provocation but without premeditation, or previous intent to kill (Ex. 21:13; Deut. 19:5).
24. Shall judge. The accused was sent out of the city of refuge, presumably under the protection of an escort, to some place where the community would consider the evidence in the case (Ex. 21:12-14; Deut. 19:1-13).
25. High priest. The safety of the accused lay in his obeying the law of the city of refuge and abiding in it. In so doing he was literally under Levitical, or ecclesiastical, protection, and so subject to the high priest. A new administration would, figuratively, give him a new lease on life.
30. Witnesses. Compare Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16.
31. No satisfaction. From the noun form of a verb root commonly translated “to make an atonement,” “to make reconciliation,” “to purge.” Here it means that a murderer might not be redeemed by paying a ransom price. This provision emphasizes the dignity of man and the value of his life in the sight of God.
32. No satisfaction. The same word as above. The enforced dwelling in the city of refuge was looked upon as a punishment for carelessness in committing accidental murder. The unintentional slayer of a man was not allowed to return to his home in exchange for a sum of money.
33. Pollute the land. There could be no expiation for the land (see Gen. 4:10; Deut. 21:1-9; Ps. 106:38).
34. Wherein I dwell. The sanctuary of God was among His people, and constituted a strong reason for guarding against “defiling” the land (see Ex. 29:45; Num. 23:21; 2 Chron. 20:11; Zech. 2:10). Compare the NT teaching in 2 Cor. 6:16, of the church, and the ideal state in the new earth (Rev. 21:3).
1. The children of Gilead. These people represented the other half of the tribe of Manasseh, who had not been settled on the east side of Jordan, in the land of Gilead, but who were to receive their inheritance in the land of Canaan.
Spake before Moses. This was a meeting with Moses in a large assembly (see ch. 27:2).
3. Taken from the inheritance of our fathers. This was a desire to prevent constant change in tribal boundaries, owing to the possessions of the women passing to their children through husbands of another tribe.
4. Jubile. Literally, “a ram’s horn,” because such a horn was blown on the tenth day of the seventh month, to inaugurate the year of jubilee (see Lev. 25:10-15, 28, 30-33, 40, 50-54; Joshua 6:4-13).
6. Only to the family. Two limitations were given. Women without brothers were not to marry men of other tribes, nor men of another branch of the same tribe. These two precautions would preserve the families and the inheritances, so important in the Israelite economy.
11. Father’s brothers’ sons. That is, their cousins, the sons of their paternal uncles (see 1 Chron. 23:22).
13. These are the commandments. This subscription probably refers to the whole book of Numbers (see Lev. 27:34), including particularly its precepts of worship (chs. 28 to 30) and its civil regulations (chs. 27:11; 35:29).
1. All Israel. There would seem to be difficulty in the voice of Moses being heard by so large a throng. It is possible, therefore, that his words were repeated by appointed leaders stationed among the people.
This side Jordan. That is, the eastern side of the river. It was “beyond the Jordan” (RSV) as viewed from western Palestine. The region is known today as Transjordan.
The wilderness. The vicinity of the eastern side of Jordan adjacent to the wilderness of wandering.
In the plain. That is, the ’Araba of Moab (Num. 22:1). The term ’Araba, here translated “plain,” applies to all the low-lying country of the river Jordan clear down to the Gulf of Aqaba, or to any part of it. The deepest part of this geographical depression is the Dead Sea.
The Red sea. The word “sea” is not in the Hebrew text. When Moses refers to the Red Sea, he uses the word for “sea” (Deut. 1:40). The Heb. suph, translated “Red,” literally means “reed” (see on Ex. 10:19). Reference here is probably to a locality east of the Jordan not yet identified.
Between Paran. The place names here given do not appear in the account of the Israelite wanderings (Num. 33). Some have identified Hazeroth with the watering place ‘ain Khadra, half way between Sinai and Ezion-geber. Otherwise, nothing is known of the places here mentioned. Laban means “white,” and Dizahab refers to a region “of gold.”
2. The way of mount Seir. That is, by the Mt. Seir road, around the borders of Edom (see on Num. 21:4).
3. The forteith year. This included the year in which they left Egypt; the second year, in which they left Sinai after a stay of 11 months; plus 38 years of wandering, until after the death of Aaron (Ex. 19:1; Num. 10:11; Deut. 2:14; see p. 187).
The eleventh month. Two months and nine days before crossing the Jordan (cf. Joshua 4:19). The book of Deuteronomy is a record of what occurred during this interval of time.
4. After he had slain. See Num. 21:21 to 22:1. The two kings here mentioned were conquered in the 40th year of the Exodus. Their defeat was one of the last achievements of Israel under the leadership of Moses.
5. Began Moses. Literally, “Moses undertook,” or “Moses took upon himself.” The Hebrew verb form here used suggests inward resolution on the part of Moses.
This law. The word here translated “law” is one that refers to instruction generally, and would apply to any and all instruction coming from God.
6. Spake unto us. See Num. 10:13.
In Horeb. See on Ex. 3:1 and 19:1.
Dwelt long enough. Israel encamped at the foot of Mt. Sinai from the third month of the first year of the Exodus (Ex. 19:1) to the 20th day of the second month of the second year (Num. 10:11). Their sojourn at Sinai was devoted to the organization of Israel as a church and a nation, and to the construction of the tabernacle (see on Ex. 3:1; 13:18).
7. The mount. Not a particular “mount,” but all the “hill country” (RSV) of Palestine, then Amorite territory. It is the same area as that covered by the 12 spies (Num. 13:17-25).
All the places nigh. “All their neighbors” (RSV). The regions adjacent to the hill country of Palestine are next listed.
The plain. Heb. ‘Arabah, the depression including the lower Jordan valley (see on Deut. 1:1; see also Deut. 3:17; 2 Kings 25:5), the Dead Sea, and the plain extending southward to the Gulf of Aqaba. The Dead Sea was called “the sea of the plain [’Araba]” (Joshua 3:16; 2 Kings 14:25).
The hills. From the same word as “mount” earlier in the verse, in reference to the hilly uplands of central Palestine.
The vale. Heb. Shephelah, a term applied to the foothill country lying between the uplands of central Palestine and the coastal plain, particularly that part of it between Judah and Philistia.
The south. Literally, “the Negeb,” the region about Beersheba and Kadesh-barnea.
The sea side. The coastal plains of Philistia, and that of Sharon, to the north of Philistia.
8. I have set the land. Literally, “I have given the land,” that is, placed it at your disposal.
Sware unto. A reference to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and recorded in Gen. 15:18; 17:7, 8; 28:13. Compare Gen. 9:9; 17:7-10, 19; 35:12; 48:4; Ex. 28:43; Num. 25:13.
9. To bear you. A reference to the advice of Jethro in Ex. 18, and to the appointment of associates to assist Moses in the work of civil administration.
10. Stars of heaven. A reference to the blessing to Abraham (Gen. 22:17) and Jacob (Gen. 26:24). See also Ex. 32:13.
11. Hath promised. See Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 17:5, 6; 18:18; 22:17, 18; etc.
12. Cumbrance. That which wearies one, wears out a person. The word thus translated appears again only in Isa. 1:14, and is there rendered “trouble.” The verb form of the word appears but once (Job 37:11), and is translated “wearieth.”
Burden. A weight to be lifted. The same word is translated “exaction” in Neh. 10:31 and “tribute” in 2 Chron. 17:11.
Strife. Disputes, contentions, controversies (see Gen. 13:7; Deut. 19:17).
13. Take you. Literally, “present ye,” or “choose” you (RSV).
Wise. The word thus translated may refer to skill in technical work (Isa. 3:3;Jer. 10:9), wisdom in administration (Gen. 41:33, 39), shrewd men (2 Sam. 13:3), and educated men (Ex. 7:11).
Understanding. From a noun whose root means “to discern,” “to be intelligent,” “to be discreet,” “to have ability to teach.”
Known. That is, “experienced” (see Ex. 18:21, 25). They were recognized to be men of competence and experience.
14. Ye answered. The verbal acquiescence of the people to the plan of selecting tribal assistants to Moses is here recorded for the first time.
15. Officers. The word thus translated means “scribe,” or “secretary,” and is from the verb “to write.” The noun probably means “writer” or “secretary,” and refers to one in charge of written records. The same usage of the identical root is found in Arabic.
16. Charged. That is, instructed or gave orders to.
The stranger. A reference to the non-Hebrew who became a proselyte. He was to receive equally fair treatment with the Jew. Uprightness and impartiality in decisions were to mark the professional work of the judges.
17. Not respect persons. The poor man was to receive equal treatment with the wealthy or with the man of high position. There was to be no respect of persons (see Ex. 23:2, 5; Lev. 19:15).
Judgment is God’s. Riches, power, position, birth, education—none of these were to influence a judicial decision. The judges of Israel stood in the place of God. They were, in fact, called ’elohim, literally “gods,” the very word used of God in such texts as Gen. 1:1-31 (see Ex. 7:1). ’Elohim is applied to judges in Ex. 21:6 and 22:8, 9, in their capacity of speaking for God and giving decisions in His name.
18. At that time. That is, while at Horeb.
19. When we departed. Literally, when we “lifted up,” or “pulled up [the stakes and tent pegs].”
Terrible wilderness. Not only vast but hot, subject to great windstorms that whipped up the sand so as to endanger life, and also infested with various poisonous creatures and wild animals.
By the way of. “On the way to” (RSV).
Kadesh-barnea. Where the Israelites remained for a long time in the Wilderness of Paran, after refusing to enter Canaan (Num. 13:3, 26).
20. Give unto us. The hills of central Palestine were part of the promised inheritance.
21. Fear not. Compare Christ’s use of a similar expression in John 14:27.
22. The land. See Num. 13:17-20.
23. Twelve men. See Num. 13:1-16.
24. They turned. That is, left Kadesh-barnea behind them and went on their way.
Valley of Eshcol. See Num. 13:24. The word translated “Eshcol” means “cluster,” particularly a cluster of grapes. The valley of Eshcol is thought to have been to the north of Hebron, a region noted for its large clusters of luscious grapes.
25. Fruit. See Num. 13:23.
A good land. See Num. 13:27; 14:7.
26. Rebelled. Literally, “were stubbornly rebellious.”
27. Murmured. See Num. 14:1.
Hated us. The children of Israel had become obnoxious to Jehovah because of their idolatry and constant grumbling.
28. The Anakims. See Num. 13:28, 33.
30. Goeth. That is, in the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night (see Ex. 13:21; 32:34; Deut. 31:6, 8).
Fight for you. See Ex. 14:14; 17:8; Joshua 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10.
31. Wilderness. The wilderness of the Red Sea (Ex. 13:18), of Sin (Ex. 16:1), of Sinai (Ex. 19:1, 2), and of Paran (Num. 10:12).
Bare thee. Compare Ex. 19:4; Isa. 46:4; 63:9; Hosea 11:4.
33. Before you. That is, in the cloud (Ex. 13:21, 22; Num. 14:14).
A place. See Num. 10:33.
34. Was wroth. Upon various occasions (Deut. 9:7, 8, 19, 22; Isa. 47:6; 57:16, 17).
35. That good land. So described again and again (Ex. 3:8; Num. 14:7; Deut. 3:25; 4:21; etc.).
36. Caleb. Together with Joshua, the successor of Moses, Caleb was an exception to the curse incurred by the people at Kadesh (Num. 14:24, 30). Eleazar, son and successor of Aaron, also entered Canaan (Joshua 17:4; 24:33).
37. Angry with me. Because of insubordination near Kadesh (Num. 20:2-5).
38. Standeth. That is, as an attentive servant. He was given the promise of entrance to Canaan, along with Caleb (Num. 14:6, 7, 30).
39. Little ones. See Num. 14:31. Their tender age and innocence kept them from being partakers of their parents’ sin.
41. We have sinned. They pretended to repent and do the Lord’s will—after it was too late, and in fear of the penalty visited upon them (Num. 14:40).
Were ready. Literally, “regarded it a light matter,” from a Hebrew verb meaning “to regard as easy,” “to make light of.” The attitude of the people was therefore somewhat different from the impression given by “were ready.” The RSV reads, “thought it easy.”
42. Go not up. Compare Num. 14:41, 42. The whole attitude of the people reflected shallow thought and superficial repentance. The ark of God’s presence could not accompany them (Num. 14:44).
43. Went presumptuously. See Num. 14:42-44. The Hebrew verb means “to boil up,” “to seethe,” “to act insolently.” They arrogantly defied the counsel of God.
44. Chased you, as bees do. An apt figure of speech denoting directness, swiftness, and ferocity of attack. There are calculated risks men may take in dealing with the physical world, and yet win, but it is never safe to defy God.
45. Wept. Their weeping was with tears of mortification and resentment, not of true repentance. “Before the Lord” means at the door of the tabernacle, where they gathered to voice aloud their feelings. Compare the experience noted in Judges 20:23, 26.
46. In Kadesh. From the time of their leaving Kadesh-barnea to their arrival at Mt. Hor, about 38 years elapsed. God designed that they should enter immediately. But weeping in perverse impenitence cannot take the place of obedience, nor of genuine repentance.
1. We turned. They now went southward, toward the shore of the Red Sea.
Mount Seir. The hilly country of the Edomites, of which Mt. Seir itself was part (see 1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chron. 8:17).
3. Long enough. Thirty-nine years had passed since the Israelites’ departure from Egypt; they spent about 38 years in wandering.
Northward. That is, from Ezion-geber toward Moab and Canaan.
4. Your brethren. The descendants of Esau (Deut. 23:7; Amos 1:11; Obadiah 10, 12; Mal. 1:2).
Take ye good heed. The inhabitants of Edom would be nervous and apprehensive, and might as a result make a sudden attack upon Israel. On the other hand, their awareness of the fear in the hearts of the Edomites might lead Israel to take advantage of that fear and invade the country.
5. Unto Esau. See Joshua 24:4. God deals faithfully even with those outside the covenant relationship. God had promised certain temporal blessings to the descendants of Esau, and would fulfill His word.
6. Buy meat. Literally, “buy food” (see Gen. 41:35, 36, 48; 42:7, 10; 44:1, 25; 47:24). The verb translated “to buy” is of buying grain (Gen. 47:14), whereas the noun from the same root means “corn” (Gen. 42:1, 2, 19, 26; 43:2; 44:2; 47:14; Amos 8:5).
Buy water. Water is a precious commodity in the desert wastes, and may easily become the cause of strife (see Gen. 26:17-22).
7. Thy walking. The care of God applies even to the details of the journey of life (Ps. 1:6).
Forty years. A round number. From the Passover in Egypt to the first Passover in Canaan, at Gilgal (Joshua 4:19; 5:10), was exactly 40 years (see p. 187).
8. Elath. Their direction from Seir had been southward to Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba and Elath, which probably lay close to Ezion-geber on the coast. Then skirting the territory of Edom as they turned and traveled northward, they reached the territory of Moab.
9. Given Ar. The descendants of Lot, like those of Ishmael and Esau, had their inheritance confirmed to them before the seed of Abraham occupied what had been assigned to them. Ar was apparently the chief city of that territory, and gave its name to the entire region (Num. 21:15, 28).
10. Emims. For mention of the people and their city, Shaveh Kiriathaim, see Gen. 14:5 and Joshua 13:19.
12. Horims. The ancient inhabitants of Mt. Seir (Gen. 14:6; 36:20), the Hurrians, whose history, language, and religion have but recently come to light (see p. 138).
13. The brook Zered. Compare Num. 21:12. The modern Wâdi el-Hesa, at the southeastern corner of the Dead Sea.
14. The men of war. An expression used to designate men 20 years of age and over (Num. 1:3).
Wasted out. Not one remained (Num. 26:64, 65).
The Lord sware. See Num. 14:28, 29.
18. Pass over. That is, to skirt the border, but without crossing it.
19. Children of Ammon. They were not to trespass upon the territory of the children of Ammon, but to pass through the territory of Sihon the king in Heshbon (see Num. 21:13, 24).
20. Zamzummins. See Gen. 14:5. Beyond the fact that these people were a race of giant stature, and were driven out of their country by the Ammonites, we have no information concerning them.
21. Destroyed them. The Ammonites were used by the Lord to discipline the people.
23. Avims. See Joshua 13:3, 4. The original inhabitants of southwest Palestine, dispossessed by the Philistines.
Caphtorims. See on Gen. 10:14; also Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7.
24. Rise ye up. See Num. 21:13. The command to cross the Arnon and invade the territory adjacent to the Jordan inhabited by the Amorites.
Sihon the Amorite. Sihon had taken this territory from the Moabites, who in turn withdrew to the south of the Arnon.
25. The dread. Compare the promise to Moses (Ex. 15:15, 16), and the experience of Joshua with the Amorites at Gibeon (Joshua 10:11).
26. Kedemoth. See Joshua 13:18; 21:37; 1 Chron. 6:79, where a city of that name is mentioned in the plain of Jordan.
27. High way. A royal highway maintained for the expeditious travel of officials and troops (Num. 20:17; 21:22). Traces of this ancient highway remain today, from the Gulf of Aqaba northward through Transjordan.
28. Thou shalt sell. The Israelites offered every inducement for the granting of a peaceful passage.
29. Pass over Jordan. An assurance to Sihon that they had no intention of settling in his land, since their inheritance lay beyond the Jordan.
30. Not let us pass by. He was suspicious of their sincerity and questioned the reasonableness of their request (see Num. 21:23).
Hardened his spirit. That is, allowed Sihon’s obstinacy to run its course.
Made his heart obstinate. The Hebrew verb thus translated means “to be strong,” “to be stout,” “to be firm.” It is elsewhere translated “strengthen” (Deut. 3:28; Ps. 27:14), “confirm” (Isa. 35:3), “fortify” (Nahum 2:1), “was stedfastly minded” (Ruth 1:18). The Lord would not interfere with the natural operation of Sihon’s heart and intents, but would confirm him in it (see on Ex. 4:21). One may use the God-given strength of mind and heart to continue in the wrong or to turn to the right. The Lord does not force a man to the one or to the other, but ever stands ready to cooperate by His Spirit with the man who chooses the good. The same word is translated in Joshua 1:6 as “be … of a good courage.”
34. Utterly destroyed. Literally, “placed under a ban,” “set apart.” Such an act might be performed only at God’s command. The same was done with respect to Jericho.
36. Aroer. An Amorite city on the right bank of the river Arnon, about 13 mi. from the Dead Sea (see Joshua 12:2; 13:16; 2 Kings 10:33). Its modern name is ‘Arâ ‘ir.
37. Jabbok. See Num. 21:24; Judges 11:22. According to the divine command the territory of the Ammonites was not invaded. Ambition must ever be in harmony with the will of God and not seek to go beyond the limits He has set. Then success in this life will be all blessing. But if one goes beyond God’s will to seek more than He permits, success in the venture may well prove to be Dead Sea fruit.
1. Turned, and went. See Num. 21:32, 33.
Bashan. Probably from the Hebrew root meaning “to be soft,” “to be smooth.” The noun as a proper name would mean “smooth,” “fertile,” which is true of the region from the Yarmuk northward to Hermon. It has few trees, but a rich soil ideal for grain.
2. Fear him not. A repetition of Num. 21:34.
Deliver him. Compare Ex. 23:31; Deut. 7:24; 20:13.
3. Smote him. See Num. 21:35.
4. Argob. See 1 Kings 4:13. The meaning of the Heb. word ’Argob is not known.The area is east of the Sea of Galilee in the highland region of southeast Bashan, and included the cities of Karnaim and Ashtaroth.
6. Destroyed. The same word as in ch. 2:34 and meaning, basically, “to devote to,” “to dedicate,” that is, here, to destruction.
8. The land. The territory allotted to Gad and Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh.
Arnon unto mount Hermon. The southern and northern boundaries of “the land.” Hermon, some 9,100 ft. above sea level, dominates the entire region.
9. Sirion. As the borders of several nations met at Mt. Hermon, it was given a name by each border people in their own language. The name Sirion, for Hermon, appears in the Ugaritic literature of northern Syria. For other instances of such differences in names see Gen. 23:2 and 31:47.
10. All the cities. The various types of territory within the conquered country are here mentioned.
Salchah and Edrei. See Joshua 13:11; Num. 21:33.
11. Giants. Literally, “Rephaim,” a very ancient people included among those defeated by Chedorlaomer and the kings associated with him (Gen. 14:5). They lived on both sides of the Jordan, and seem to have belonged to an earlier group of inhabitants of the region.
Bedstead. The word thus translated is also given as “couch” (Ps. 6:6; Amos 3:12; 6:4). It may refer also to a sarcophagus, or tomb.
13. Land of giants. Literally, the “land of the Rephaim” (see on v. 11). King Og was the last of the “giants.”
14. Jair. His mother was of the tribe of Manasseh, but his father was of the tribe of Judah (see 1 Chron. 2:22). Jair had conquered this territory, which was, accordingly, given to him and his descendants (Num. 32:41).
Geshuri and Maachathi. This was the district between the Yarmuk and Hermon, being the western part of Bashan (see Gen. 22:24; 2 Sam. 15:8; 1 Chron. 19:6).
15. Machir. That portion of Gilead that had not been given to the children of Gad was allotted to the descendants of Machir (Num. 32:40).
16. Half the valley. The stream that flowed through the valley, or wadi, was to form the boundary.
Jabbok. This stream was to be the other boundary of the territory. It was here that Jacob wrestled with the Angel (Gen. 32:22-24).
17. Chinnereth. The Sea of Chinnereth (Joshua 12:3; 13:27). There was also a city of the same name (Joshua 19:35), from which the lake received its name. It was on the northwestern shore of the lake, its ruins now being known as Tell el-‘Oreimeh. The Sea of Chinnereth is the NT Sea of Galilee, also called the Lake of Gennesaret, and later known as the Sea of Tiberias.
The salt sea. Known also as the Dead Sea, “the sea of the plain” (Deut. 4:49; 2 Kings 14:25, cf. Gen. 14:3; Num. 34:3, 12).
Under Ashdoth-pisgah eastward. Literally, “under the slopes of Pisgah on the east” (RSV). Mt. Pisgah, with its peak, Nebo, now called Râs es-Siâghah, is in the mountains of Abarim, overlooking the Dead Sea from the eastern side (see Num. 27:12; Deut. 34:1-3).
18. I commanded you. A reference to the command given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh (see Num. 32:20).
Hath given you this land. As they had specifically requested (Num. 32:20-22).
Armed. See Num. 32:17-32.
Before your brethren. The members of the two tribes were to be an advance guard of the army of Israel. Compare the valor of Gad in ch. 33:20.
19. Your wives. See Num. 32:16, 24, 26.
20. Rest. When the Promised Land was occupied, Joshua dismissed the armies of the two and a half tribes to return to their own territory on the other side of Jordan (Joshua 22:4).
21. Thine eyes have seen all. Literally, “thine own eyes, these were the ones seeing all.” Moses’ appeal was to the people to remember the way by which God had led them.
22. The Lord. The last half of the verse reads literally, “Jehovah your God, He is the one fighting for you.” The pronoun “he” is emphatic.
23. I besought. The form of the Hebrew verb suggests the translation, “I was seeking favor of the Lord for myself.” This was when God told Moses that he would not enter the Land of Promise but must die at the border (Num. 27:12, 13).
24. Begun to shew. Moses was eager to witness the end of the conquest of Canaan, as he had its beginning.
Mighty hand. See Joshua 4:24. The hand is a symbol of power, for it is the instrument by which power is exercised. It is translated “dominion” in 1 Chron. 18:3 and 2 Chron. 21:8.
What God is there? Moses knew that other nations believed in a heaven peopled by many goods, but he knew that there was but one God; all others were figments of the imagination.
25. See. In the sense of becoming acquainted with firsthand, that is, by personal experience.
That goodly mountain, and Lebanon. Literally, “this good hill country and Lebanon,” or perhaps better, “this good mountain, even Lebanon.” The name Lebanon, from the verb “to be white,” means “white (mountain).” The cool, wooded slopes of the mountain and its snow-covered cap looked inviting and desirable in contrast to the desert country. Moses longed to walk in the cool of Lebanon.
26. Was wroth. From a word whose root means “to pass over.” The form here used being reflexive, the word means “to exceed the limit,” that is, to be beside oneself in respect to someone or some incident (see Ps. 78:21, 59, 62).
Not go over. Compare Deut. 31:2 and Joshua 1:2, 11.
28. He shall go over. The pronoun is emphatic: “He is the one who shall cross over.” By this emphasis Moses knew that the decision was irrevocable.
29. Beth-peor. The first word of this compound term means “house.” The second word, “peor,” may be from a root meaning “to be greedy,” “to be open,” “to have eager desire.” In this case the name would mean, “the house of desire.” In this vicinity Moses was buried by God (ch. 34:6).
1. Hearken. In the sense of “give heed.” The third chapter concluded the review of the journey of Israel from Horeb to the river Jordan, preliminary to crossing it. Chapter 4 consists largely of an exhortation to obedience.
Statutes. That is, the provisions of the civil code regulating conduct, in contrast to the “judgments,” which were concerned with the administration of the “statutes,” particularly with respect to judicia decisions. The word rendered “judgments” is sometimes also translated “right,” in the sense of “justice,” or a “right decision” (Gen. 18:25; Job 34:6, 7; 35:2; Ps. 9:4).
Ye may live. Their fathers had died in the wilderness because of disobedience; they were to live—if they obeyed God—in the land promised their fathers.
2. Ye shall not add. Whatever God does is perfect. To add to it or to subtract from it is to mar or spoil it (Deut. 12:32; Jer. 26:2; Rev. 22:18).
Commandments. From the Hebrew commonly translated “command” or “commandment” (Gen. 26:5; Ex. 15:26; Lev. 4:2; Num. 15:22; Ps. 78:7; etc.).
3. Because of Baal-peor. Literally, “in Baal-peor.” For the sin and its results at this place see Num. 25:1-5; Deut. 3:29; Hosea 9:10. Some scholars think that the Baal-peor here mentioned was a god of sexual desire, such as is worshipped so freely by the Lingayats in India today.
4. Cleave. This word stands for the closest possible relationship, like that of husband and wife (Gen. 2:24; see also Job 19:20 and Jer. 13:11).
6. Keep therefore and do. To “keep”them is to give assent of mind and heart to them, with intent to order the life accordingly; to “do” them is to carry out the intent of the will. A man must purpose to do right before he does right. These two exhortations are repeated again and again (chs. 7:12; 16:12; 23:23; 24:8; 26:16; 28:13). It is the practical carrying out of God’s will that He appreciates and values highly.
Your wisdom. The respect of Israel among the nations would be in proportion to their faithfulness in observing the commandments of God. The blessings of God upon His people as they lived in harmony with His requirements would greatly impress the surrounding nations.
8. All this law. Literally, “all this torah.” The word torah is inclusive of all instruction and doctrine, and comprehends all principles of conduct. Moses suggests the idea of comparing God’s “law,” or principles of conduct, with those of the surrounding nations.
9. Diligently. Constant vigilance is necessary in order that the spiritual life may ever be in tune with God’s revealed will.
Teach them thy sons. Literally, “make them known to thy children” (see Ex. 12:26; 13:8, 14; Joshua 4:21).
10. In Horeb. The memorable occasion when God revealed His holy law. The memory of this occasion was ever to be kept clearly in mind.
Fear me. To “fear” God is to regard Him with profound and reverent respect (Ex. 19:10-13; 20:20) and to have proper regard for His will (Deut. 8:6; Prov. 3:7; Eccl. 12:13; Isa. 11:2, 3; 33:6).
11. Ye came near. See Ex. 19:17.
Burned. That is, the mountain had the appearance of being on fire, like the “burning” bush (Ex. 3:2; cf. Heb. 12:18).
12. The Lord spake. See Ex. 19:20; 20:1, 22.
Midst of the fire. See Ex. 19:18; 24:17; Deut. 4:15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22, 24; 9:10; 10:4.
The voice. Literally, “the sound,” that is, of the words God spoke (see Ex. 19:19; 24:16).
Saw no similitude. Literally, “saw no form.” “Similitude” is rendered “likeness” in Deut. 4:23, 25; 5:8; Ps. 17:15, and “form” in Job 4:16.
13. Covenant. The Hebrew word thus translated may be applied to any agreement or contract. It probably comes from the Hebrew verb “to bind,” “to fetter.” It is used of a treaty or alliance (Gen. 14:13; Ex. 23:32), an agreement (2 Sam. 3:12, 13, 21; Jer. 34:8), and of the marriage vow (Mal. 2:14).
Ten commandments. Literally, “the ten words.” These were later written by God Himself (Ex. 24:12; 34:28; Deut. 10:4).
14. Commanded me. God Himself presented the Ten Commandments, but all the civil and ceremonial laws were given through Moses (Ex. 24:3). This important distinction Moses repeatedly emphasizes (Ex. 20:1, 19; 21:1; 24:3; Deut. 5:22). The book of Deuteronomy is concerned primarily with the civil laws.
15. Similitude. Literally, “form” (see on v. 12). Man is prone to seek to express his concepts of deity in visible, material form. The manifestation of divine glory at Sinai was not to be an excuse for doing so.
16. Corrupt yourselves. See Ex. 20:4. Heathen nations have degraded themselves by depicting deity in forms partly human and partly animal and by making grotesque representations of the human form.
18. Creepeth. The worship of snakes and other lowly creatures is common among millions of people even today.
Fish. The ancient Philistines. Mesopotamians, and possibly the Egyptians included in their pantheon a fish god (see Ex. 20:4).
19. The host of heaven. The worship of the heavenly bodies is a snare into which man has fallen from earliest times. Today such worship is common in many Eastern countries. For a record of this sin among God’s people see 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; Jer. 44:18, 19; Eze. 8:16; Zeph. 1:5.
20. The iron furnace. In 1 Kings 8:51 and Jer. 11:4 this figure of speech is used to denote harsh servitude. Isaiah defines the disciplinary experiences under God’s hand as a process of refining in a furnace (Isa. 48:10; see also Job 23:10).
People of inheritance. Or, “his own inheritance” (see ch. 32:9).
21. Lord was angry. For the third time Moses speaks of this fact, in an endeavor to impress upon Israel the liabilities involved in opposition to God’s will (ch. 1:37; 3:26).
Giveth. Literally, “on the point of giving,” or “about to give” (see also chs. 15:4; 25:19; 26:1).
22. I must die. Moses felt keenly his being forbidden entrance to the land of Promise (see Num. 27:12-14).
23. A graven image. The danger of idolatrous practices lay heavily on the heart of Moses (see vs. 16, 25).
24. A consuming fire. Compare Ps. 50:3; Isa. 29:6; 30:27, 30; Amos 5:6; Zeph. 1:18; Heb. 12:29.
A jealous God. God will not tolerate divided. affections or halfhearted service (Ex. 20:5).
25. Remained long. Literally, “fallen asleep.” The Hebrew word thus used means “to sleep,” and may be used figuratively of the dulling spiritual life, or the loss of one’s first impressions.
26. Not prolong. They would perish as a nation (see Deut. 5:33; 11:9; 17:20; 22:7; 30:18; 32:47).
27. Scatter you. See Lev. 26:32, 33.
28. Serve gods. This verse is descriptive of the most debasing form of idolatry (see 2 Kings 19:18), (Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Micah 5:13).
29. All thy heart. One’s motives must be pure and spiritual (see chs. 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 30:2, 6, 10).
30. Latter days. Literally, “in the afterdays.” This expression is frequent in a prophetic sense, pointing to the Messiah and to His second coming and kingdom (see Isa. 2:2; Hosea 3:5; Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:1, 2; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 2:18).
31. Merciful. The root from which the adjective thus translated comes means “to love,” “to be inclined toward affection,” and in the intensive form, “to have compassion.” In the 13 times this adjective is used in the OT, it is always applied to God.
He will not forsake thee. Literally, “He will not let thee sink down.” The verb is often translated, “to become feeble,” “to become weakened,” “to faint.”
32. For ask now. It strengthens the believer to recall God’s dealings in times past (see LS 196).
33. People hear. This reflects their awe in the presence of God. Sinful man cannot literally see God and live (Ex. 33:20; Judges 13:22).
34. Assayed. That is, “ventured” or “attempted.”
Temptations. Literally, “trials.” There is no thought here of leading into sin but rather of trying experiences.
Wonders. A reference to the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7:3; 11:9, 10).
War. The defeat of the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:14; 15:3).
A mighty hand. See Deut. 3:24; 9:29; also Ex. 6:6; 7:5.
36. His great fire. A reference to the glory of God (see on Deut. 4:11, 24).
37. He chose their seed. See Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 16; 22:17, 18; Ex. 32:13.
38. Drive out. Literally, “dispossessed,” as it is translated in Num. 32:39.
Greater and mightier. So much so that at the report of the spies Israel became fearful and rebelled against God (Num. 13:28-31).
40. Prolong thy days. See chs. 5:16; 6:2; 11:9. Here closes Moses’ first oration.
41. Severed three cities. Literally, “caused three cities to be separated,” that is, the cities of refuge. The same word, translated “separated,” is used of the setting apart of the tribe of Levi to carry the sacred furniture of the tabernacle (ch. 10:8). Ezekiel 42:20 speaks of a “separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.”
Sun rising. That is, “to the east,” meaning east of the Jordan, in the territory occupied by the two and a half tribes.
42. These cities. See ch. 19:1-13 for the laws respecting the cities of refuge.
43. Bezer. From a word meaning “fortress” or “enclosure.” The word is translated “defence” in Job 22:25. The site is possibly Umm el-Ammad.
Ramoth. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “coral.” Ramoth played an important role in the later history of the kings of Israel (see 1 Kings 4:7, 13; 22:1-40; 2 Kings 8:28, 29). Now called Tell Rāmîth, this site lies 25 mi. east of the Jordan as the crow flies.
Golan. Probably from a word meaning “circle.” It is usually identified with the modern village Sahem el-Jōlân, 18 mi. east of the Sea of Chinnereth.
44. The law. The torah, meaning God’s instructions in general, inclusive of the Ten Commandments.
Set before. Literally, “to place,” “to lay,” here with the idea of placing the law before their eyes (see Ex. 19:7, where it is rendered “laid”).
45. The testimonies. The Hebrew word thus translated is used 60 times in the OT, almost without exception of the Ten Commandments.
46. Smote. In the 40th year of the Exodus (Num. 21:24; 33:38; see Israel’s Campaign East of the Jordan).
47. On this side Jordan. See Joshua 1:15; 12:1.
48. Mount Sion. Not Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, but either another name for Sirion, the Sidonian name for Mt. Hermon, or the name of one of its peaks (Deut. 3:8, 9, 12; Ps. 29:6).
1. The statutes and judgments. The same Hebrew words as given in ch. 4:1.
2. Made a covenant. See Ex. 19:5-8; 24:3-8.
3. Our fathers. That is, our forefathers, referring to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the 12 patriarchs. The agreements between God and the “fathers” were personal in nature. At Sinai, for the first time in history, God entered into an agreement with an entire nation. He was to be their King, and they His people.
4. Face to face. They were in His immediate presence, yet “saw no similitude” (Deut. 4:12; see also Ex. 20:22).
5. Between the Lord and you. Moses was the mediator between God and Israel (Ex. 19:10-12, 17, 21; Gal. 3:19).
8. Any graven image. Human conceptions of form cannot be applied to God. It belittles God to represent Him by any outward form (John 4:24). Material representations of God can give only a distorted and imperfect concept of His majesty and infinite character, and therefore depreciate God. The only earthly image that can even remotely resemble God is the human character transformed into the divine likeness (Gen. 1:26, 27; John 3:3; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10).
10. Them that love me. Only those thatlove God can possibly obey Him. Obedience that does not come from the heart is nothing more than a legalistic attempt at self-righteousness, by which a man seeks to commend himself to God. In the sight of heaven such is not obedience at all. Without the spirit of obedience, the letter, the outward form, is worthless. But he who loves God supremely will find his greatest delight in cooperating with Him.
11. In vain. Literally, “to vanity,” meaning falsely, hypocritically, or in a thoughtless, common manner. Man’s attitude toward God is to be marked with reverence, and this is to be reflected in words and deeds.
12. The sabbath day. See on Ex. 20:8-11. The fourth commandment has a natural basis reaching back to creation (Gen. 2:1-3); it also has a moral basis in the Creator-creature relationship. The primary purpose of the Sabbath as an institution is to safeguard that relationship. As physical health calls for a day of rest each week, so spiritual health requires the Sabbath for exercising the mind and heart in quest of God, that we may “feel after him, and find him” (Acts 17:27).
15. Thou wast a servant. Every act of God on our behalf constitutes a reason why we should “remember,” that is, to reflect upon, acknowledge, and appreciate this love and beneficent care. It is God’s purpose that on the Sabbath day whatever interferes with the direct and personal fellowship between the creature and his Creator should be laid aside. The Sabbath is a day on which it is our happy privilege to become better acquainted with our Father in heaven, whom to know is life eternal (John 17:3). To know God is to love Him (see 1 John 4:8), to honor Him, and to appreciate the evidences of His paternal goodness (Rom. 1:21).
Their deliverance from Egypt constituted an additional reason why the Israelites should reverence the Sabbath, yet the very words of the fourth commandment itself point back to the origin of the Sabbath at creation (Ex. 20:8-11) as the reason for the command here to “keep the sabbath day to sanctify it.” It should be remembered that the form in which God spoke the Ten Commandments upon Sinai is that given in Ex. 20, not in Deut. 5. As its name implies, the book of Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of the various laws transmitted to Israel at Sinai, with additional explanations given by Moses in an attempt to impress the people with the importance of observing faithfully all that they had been commanded to do. If mention of the deliverance from Egypt in connection with the fourth commandment be taken as limiting its observance, in principle, to those who were thus delivered—literal Israelites—then the principles of the Ten Commandments as a whole belong to the Jews only, for both here (Deut. 5:6) and in Ex. 20:2 God presented His law as based on the fact that He had brought them forth from the land of Egypt.
As literal Israel was delivered from the bondage of Egypt, so God’s people today have been set free from the bondage of sin (Rom. 6:16-18). The Sabbath thus becomes for the Christian a memorial not only of creation but of the re-creation of the image of God in his own heart and mind (see on Deut. 5:8). The Sabbath is thus a “sign” of sanctification (Eze. 20:12)—of redemption as well as of creation.
16. Honour. Compare the instruction of the apostle Paul in Eph. 6:1-3 (see also Ex. 20:12). Only the child who learns to honor and respect the authority of his parents will learn to honor and reverence God.
22. Assembly. The word thus translated refers to the gathering together of people or of their chosen representatives. It is often translated “congregation” (Lev. 4:14, 21), and “company” (Eze. 23:46, 47).
Two tables of stone. Also referred to as the “tables of the covenant” (ch. 9:9, 11, 15) and the “two tables of testimony” (Ex. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29).
25. Why should we die? The people had been duly impressed by the majesty of God, and realized that, as sinners, they could not even live in His presence. Consciousness of sin made them fear for their lives. The wicked will eventually choose to die rather than to live in the presence of God (Rev. 6:15-17).
28. They have well said. Their profound awe at the manifestation of divine power and glory was the very attitude of mind andheart God desired to produce in them. It is only when a man becomes humble in God’s sight, when he realizes his utter sinfulness and helplessness in contrast to God’s righteousness and omnipotence, that God can work in him and with him.
29. Such an heart. Or, “such a frame of mind.” The life is but a projection of the thoughts of the “heart,” or mind; as a man thinks, so is he (Prov. 23:7). God is not so much concerned with the outward acts as He is with the motives that prompt the acts. If a man purposes in his “heart” to cooperate with God—“if there be first a willing mind” (2 Cor. 8:12)—the life will be transformed accordingly (Rom. 12:2). Heart obedience is the only true obedience; it alone is acceptable to God.
30. Get you. A command given in recognition of their request to be released from the presence of God. Moses was henceforth to be the go-between (v. 5).
32. Not turn aside. Those who enter into the covenant relationship are expected to serve Him with an undivided heart, and not to “turn aside” to follow their own inclinations (see chs. 17:11, 20; 28:14).
33. Prolong your days. The blessing of God is conditional upon obedience to His precepts, not by His arbitrary decree, but because cooperation with eternal principles naturally tends to “prolong” life. Furthermore, occupation of the Promised Land was conditional upon their continued loyalty. Their right to Canaan was based exclusively on the provisions of the covenant. Should they violate its requirements, they would forfeit their right to that land.
1. Commandments. The same Hebrew words in the same order as in ch. 5:31.
2. Fear the Lord. The Hebrew word “to fear” means “to stand in awe of,” “to reverence,” “to honor” (see on ch. 4:10).
3. Increase mightily. Compare the promise of God to the patriarchs (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:17, 18).
4. The Lord our God is one Lord. Literally, “Jehovah our God, Jehovah [is] One.” In striking contrast to the nations about them, who were polytheists, the Hebrews believed in one true God. This profession of faith has been the watchword of the Hebrew race for more than 3,000 years (see Mark 12:29). The apostle Paul states the same truth as a tenet of Christianity (1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6).
Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the oldest extant Hebrew manuscript of any part of the OT was the Nash Papyrus, of the 1st century b.c., which contains the Decalogue and Deut. 6:4, 5.
5. Love. The Hebrew word here translated “love” is a general term that also suggests the ideas “desire,” “affection,” “inclination,” the more intimate cleaving of soul to soul. The believer’s relation to God is based on love (1 John 4:19), and love is the fundamental principle of His law (Mark 12:29, 30). To love perfectly is to obey wholeheartedly (John 14:15; 15:10).
Thine heart. Christianity calls for all that a man is and has—his mind, his affections, and his capacity for action (1 Thess. 5:23). The word here translated “heart” generally refers to the affections, feelings, desires, and will. It is the source of action and the center of thought and feeling (see Ex. 31:6; 36:2; 2 Chron. 9:23; Eccl. 2:23). The word translated “soul” denotes the animating principle in man, the life, but includes also his bodily appetites and desires (see Num. 21:5). It is rendered “appetite” in Prov. 23:2; Eccl. 6:7.
The word translated “might” is from a verb meaning “to increase.” The noun, as here, means “abundance,” and may refer to the things that have accrued to a man in this life.
6. In thine heart. Literally, “upon thine heart” (see ch. 11:18).
7. Teach. The word here translated “teach” means “to whet,” “to sharpen” (see Deut. 32:41; Ps. 64:3; 140:3; Isa. 5:28). This call, then, is for clear, incisive teaching. Parents have weighty responsibility to instruct their children in matters of duty and destiny, day by day.
8. Bind them. The Jews later took these words literally, wearing phylacteries upon the head and the inside of the left arm (see on Ex. 13:9).
9. On thy gates. It is a custom today insome Eastern countries to inscribe words of desired blessing and promise over doorways. Moslems and Hindus do it, as do the Chinese, particularly at the New Year season.
12. Beware. Verses 10-12 stood as a warning to Israel when they entered a land in which all the good things of life were abundantly supplied. They were not to become so engrossed with their new possessions as to forget their duties to God. With the increase of material goods there is ever the tendency to “forget the Lord,” by whose power these things are secured (ch. 8:18).
The house of bondage. Literally, “the house of slaves.” Here their former place of abode, Egypt, is referred to as a “house.”
13. Swear. That is, to bind oneself by an oath. The word thus translated is from the same root as the numeral seven. The implication is that when a man “swears” he binds himself seven times, meaning that he assumes an obligation from which nothing can set him free.
14. Other gods. This injunction is closely connected with v. 13: they were not even to mention the names of other gods (Ex. 23:13; Joshua 23:7; Jer. 5:7).
15. A jealous God. See Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24. The root of the word translated “jealous” means “to become intensely colored in the face,” that is, from deep emotions such as love, zeal, or anger. By His very nature God cannot be otherwise; how could He share the affections of His people with other gods (2 Cor. 6:14-17)? Light and darkness cannot exist together; to harbor darkness in the soul one must exclude the light.
16. Tempt. Literally, “test,” “try,” “prove.” Here it does not have the modern concept of enticing to sin. The same word is used of God’s “proving” or “testing” men, to develop their character and to strengthen their faith and loyalty to Him (see Gen. 22:1; Ex. 20:20; Deut. 8:2, 16; Dan. 1:14). The English word probation is from the same Latin root as the word prove. A period of probation is a period of testing or proving. At Massah, Israel reversed the process and defiantly put God to the test (Ex. 17:2, 7). When Satan challenged Christ to jump down from the cornice of the Temple, Christ quoted from Deut. 6:16 (Matt. 4:7). For Christ to have acceded to the suggestion would have demonstrated presumption rather than faith. Presumption is the counterfeit of faith.
18. Well with thee. Loyally discharged duties make it possible for God to bestow additional blessings. Again and again Moses emphasized the necessity of unswerving loyalty to Jehovah.
19. All thine enemies. That is, all who opposed their occupation of the Land of Promise. By their persistent refusal to honor the true God they had made themselves His enemies, and thus the enemies of His chosen people.
20. Thy son asketh thee. See Ex. 13:14. It was ever God’s mind that parents should assume the first responsibility of instructing children in their responsibilities to God.
23. He brought us out. Their miraculous deliverance from literal slavery was ever to be remembered as an evidence of the power of God and His claims upon them. Deliverance from Egypt implies also deliverance from sin (see Rom. 6:12-23; 8:21).
24. For our good. All that God requires of us is for our own good. The restrictions He places upon us are our protection against spiritual dangers that may not be apparent. A shepherd does not erect a fold about his sheep to prevent them from having a good time with the wolves, but rather that he “might preserve” them “alive.”
Preserve us alive. That is, both as a nation and as individuals.
25. Our righteousness. Literally, “righteousness shall be [credited] to us.” The idea is that compliance with God’s revealed will, in the strength He imparts to us (Rom. 8:3, 4; Gal. 2:20), is acceptable in His sight as if the “righteousness” were our own. A man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 5:1), but “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20).
1. Many nations. The Hittites are mentioned many times in the Scriptures (see on Gen. 10:15).
Girgashites. A Canaanite tribe of western Palestine (see Gen. 10:16; Joshua 24:11).
Amorites. See on Gen. 10:16. This numerous and widespread people is often mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 14:7, 13; 15:16, 21; 48:22; etc.) Their name appear in 18 books of the OT.
The Perizzites. A people of the central portion of western Palestine (see on Gen. 13:7).
Hivites. See on Gen. 10:17. Little is known of them.
Jebusites. See on Gen. 10:16. This people held the hill-fort Jebus, also called Jerusalem, or Salem (Joshua 15:63; 18:28; Judges 1:21; 2 Sam. 5:6, 8). The name Jerusalem is attested in Egyptian records of the 19th century b.c.
2. No covenant. See Ex. 23:32; 34:12. It was not God’s purpose that Israel should forever remain isolated from other nations. But until they had learned to trust and serve Him with a perfect heart, association with idolaters was fraught with danger. God intended the Hebrew people to be a light to the world, but so long as they were prone to absorb the darkness of others it was best for them to remain apart. With this danger past, Israel would be in a position to bear witness of the true God to the heathen nations about them (see Ex. 24:12; Num. 33:52).
3. Marriages with them. Intimate association with idolaters as in the home would affect not only the individual but the nation (see Ex. 34:15, 16). Solomon violated this principle, with untold personal and national loss as a result (1 Kings 11:1). There is no happiness or safety in making alliances with those who neither love nor serve God (1 Cor. 6:14-17). The tragic experiences of Esau (Gen. 26:34, 35), Samson (Judges 14:1), and others are eloquent in their witness favoring the admonition to remain separate.
4. Turn away. A man’s love for his wife, an idolater, would usually if not always turn his heart from God. This was a distinct danger against which Joshua warned (Joshua 23:11-13).
5. Their groves. These ’asherim were probably carved wooden pillars, consecrated to Asherah, a Canaanite goddess (see Deut. 16:21; Judges 6:25-30).
Burn. For a similar command see Num. 33:52. See also the zeal of David in respect to the images of the Philistines (1 Chron. 14:12).
6. An holy people. See Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7, 26. Holiness to Jehovah was to be the very constitution and norm ofconduct of the people. The primary meaning of the word translated “holy” is that of physical separateness. It then developed the idea of “consecration” or “dedication.” A “holy” people was a “separate” people, separate, that is, from the customs of the nations about them and dedicated exclusively to the service of God (see 1 Peter 2:9).
A special people. Literally, “a people of special possession.” The word translated “special” is from a root meaning “to acquire property.” The noun form here used means “private property,” “a possession.”
7. More in number. Compare the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1, 2). Even 200 years after the promise was given there were but 70 males in the chosen branch of his family (Gen. 46:26, 27).
8. The Lord loved you. Literally, “Jehovah, who is the lover of you.” God’s love may be compared to that of a parent for his children.
A mighty hand. The “mighty hand” of Jehovah is the hand of divine power, used to deliver His people and to strengthen them to fulfill their true destiny. This is seen in the development of Abraham’s seed into a mighty nation. God’s people went down into Egypt a family of 70, yet in due time the Lord made them “as the stars of heaven for multitude” (Deut. 10:22).
9. The faithful God. The word translated “faithful” is a participial form of the verb ’aman, from which, through the Greek, comes our word “amen.” The Hebrew verb means “to stay,” “to support,” “to be firm,” so stressing the idea of utter dependability.
Mercy. From chesed, a word without any exact English equivalent. It reflects the concepts of ardent love, earnest desire, selfless kindness, grace, favor, and mercy. It represents the summit of unselfishness in either God or man. The RSV renders the term by “steadfast love.”
Thousand generations. Equivalent in meaning to the expression “forever.” Reference is to the multitudes throughout history who enter the covenant relationship.
10. Repayeth them. Not in spite but as the One who rewards every man according to his just deserts (Eccl. 11:9; Rom. 2:6-11; Rev. 22:12). God is supremely just and patient, but His mercy (see on v. 9) toward any individual is limited by the welfare of all. Sin has wages, and he who has earned may expect to receive payment in full. Those who obstinately spurn His mercy (v. 9) will eventually and inevitably experience His wrath.
11. Keep the commandments. Literally, “keep the command,” perhaps in reference to the Decalogue as a whole, or to any one of its precepts applicable under the circumstances.
12. If ye hearken. The word translated “if” is actually a noun meaning “consequence.” It is usually used as an adverb meaning “as a consequence of,” “because of.” Accordingly, the translation here would be, not “if,” but, “as a consequence of,” pointing to the rewards for heeding the precepts of the Lord.
13. Bless thee. These rich promises are a reiteration of those made to their forefathers (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 28:14; Lev. 26:4, 5; Jer. 31:12).
14. Barren. See Ex. 23:26. Fertility was considered the greatest of earthly blessings, as barrenness was the greatest curse.
15. The evil diseases of Egypt. In the Scriptures the most loathsome diseases are spoken of as being identified with Egypt (Ex. 15:26; Deut. 28:27, 35). Had Israel cooperated with the principles of healthful living given them by God, “feebleness and disease would have been unknown among them” (PP 378). They would have become models of health and physical stamina, and of increased mental and moral strength.
16. A snare. Literally, “a bait,” from the verb root, “to lay a bait.” In Amos 3:5 the word translated “snare” is entirely different from the one used here, and the word there translated “gin” is the one here rendered “snare.”
18. Not be afraid. The new generation was to avoid the spirit of fear exhibited by their fathers, as the result of which they perished in the wilderness (Num. 14:35). Fear, the opposite of faith, is unable to cooperate with God. This accounts for the fact that God could not lead the former generation into the land it might otherwise have been their privilege to enjoy (Heb. 3:12, 19).
19. Temptations. Literally, “tests” or “trials” but never in the Bible “temptations,” in the sense of allurements to evil. The reference here is to the evidences of divine power by which God sought to lead Pharaoh to release His people. By these God presented the king with convincing evidence that He was God, thus confronting him with a test that required him to choose between cooperation with God’s will or opposition to it.
20. The hornet. Probably used in a figurative sense (see on Ex. 23:28; see also Joshua 24:12).
21. God is among you. Compare the question of Moses before the rock in Horeb (Ex. 17:6, 7).
22. Little and little. That is, as they were prepared to occupy it (Ex. 23:29). If the land were permitted to revert to a wilderness, the difficulty facing the people of Israel would thereby be greatly increased.
23. Deliver them. Compare the variant expression of the same thought in Ex. 23:27.
24. Deliver their kings. Joshua lists 31 kings subdued during the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 12:7-24).
25. Silver or gold. Metals used to overlay wooden idols and ornaments adorning them (see Isa. 30:22). These would only become a snare to Israel (Joshua 7:21, 22), and were not of permanent value anyway.
26. A cursed thing. That is, devoted to destruction. To touch or harbor that which was destined for destruction was to suffer the same fate. Compare God’s message to Ahab (1 Kings 20:42).
1. All the commandments. Literally, “each commandment,” perhaps stressing each one individually (see on ch. 7:11).
2. Remember all the way. The evidences of God’s leading are both so many and so remarkable that the humble child of God need never lose confidence or become despondent. It is by forgetting the many things God has done for us that we take our first steps away from Him into the far country of forgetfulness (Rom. 1:21; LS 196).
3. By bread only. It was from this statement of Moses that Jesus quoted in response to Satan’s first temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4).
4. Thy raiment waxed not old. A miraculous intervention by God (see Deut. 29:5; Neh. 9:21). Apparently they were without means of providing sufficient clothing themselves; otherwise God would not have taken unusual steps to satisfy their requirements. God provided food, drink, protection, and other things when they could not help themselves.
Swell. The word thus translated appears elsewhere only in Neh. 9:21, and its meaning is rather obscure. It could perhaps mean “to blister.” The noun from the same root, however, is translated “dough” (Ex. 12:34, 39; Jer. 7:18; Hosea 7:4), no doubt because it swells as a result of the fermentation of yeast.
5. Chasteneth thee. The discipline of God is always educational, never merely to inflict suffering and distress (Heb. 12:5-11; Rev. 3:19). The Greek verb translated “prove” or “proved” in 2 Cor. 8:8; 1 Tim. 3:10, almost invariably implies testing done in order to place approval upon what is so tested. Thus it is with the chastening of God (Job 23:10; Jer. 9:7).
6. Walk in his ways. Rather than in ways of our own choosing (see Ex. 18:20; 1 Kings 3:14).
7. A good land. Modern Palestine is quite unlike this description. It is likely that centuries of using the land carelessly and denuding it of the heavy stands of timber, that controlled water and erosion, depleted its fertility. Contemporary Egyptian descriptions of the land offer a far more attractive picture than it presents today.
8. Wheat, and barley. The basic grain crops.
Fig trees, and pomegranates. Together with the olive tree, these were the principal fruit trees of ancient Palestine.
9. Whose stones are iron. Iron was foundin the mountainous country south of the Dead Sea. Iron is exported from this region today. During the time of the judges the Philistines held a monopoly over the fabrication of iron (1 Sam. 13:19-22). Their iron probably came from Asia Minor. It was only in the time of David, when the power of the Philistines was broken, that iron came into common use in Israel.
Brass. Rather, “copper” or “bronze,” an alloy of copper and tin. Brass, an alloy of copper and zinc, was unknown in ancient times. Copper was mined in the Wadi Arabah, between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. Copper artifacts were found at Ezion-geber, Solomon’s port at the head of that gulf, from which sailed “ships of Tarshish,” or “refinery ships” (see on 1 Kings 10:22).
10. Bless the Lord thy God. Gratitude should be expressed as well as felt. Without gratitude man is little better than a dumb brute. True nobility of soul begins with appreciation for the blessings of Heaven and the kindnesses of our fellow men (Ps. 103:2).
12. Goodly houses. Material possessions often lead to undue concern with the things of this world. The Christian is to make God first, and trust Him for the needs of life (Matt. 6:33). Too often we are prone to make these “things” first and hope that in some way heaven will be “added” to us.
13. All that thou hast. Wealth is not of itself evil. It is the human tendency, however, to become engrossed in attempts to accumulate it and to hold on to it for personal pleasure, and forget God in the process. It was when Abram and Lot became wealthy that strife arose between them (Gen. 13:6, 7). It is when Christians become “rich, and increased with goods” and feel content therewith that they wax poor in things of more permanent worth (Rev. 3:17). It is often “the poor of this world” who prove to be “rich in faith” (James 2:5).
14. Lifted up. That is, in pride that wealth and prosperity are due to one’s own efforts (see v. 18). Note the counsel given as to the duties of a king (ch. 17:20), and compare Hosea 13:6.
15. Terrible Wilderness. See on ch. 1:19.
Fiery serpents. See on Num. 21:6.
Scorpions. A common nuisance in the desert country south of Judah, and less so elsewhere in Palestine. Some eight varieties exist there, the largest being some 8 in. in length. Scorpion bites can be extremely painful.
Drought. Literally, “thirsty ground” (see Ps. 107:33; Isa. 35:7).
Flint. The same occurs also in Deut. 32:13 and Ps. 114:8. As used in the Bible “flint” may refer to any hard rock. Some knives were made of flint (Joshua 5:2). Figuratively, flint stands for loyalty and devotion to duty (Isa. 50:7).
16. At thy latter end. That is, “in the end,” referring here to Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land. It simply draws a contrast between the painful lessons of the 40 years of wandering compared with the peace and security of Canaan (see Heb. 12:11). The expression here has no reference to the end of the world.
17. My power. Man is prone to take the credit for his good estate and to boast of being a self-made person.
18. Giveth thee power. All that we are and all that we have are from God. Consciousness of this fact keeps a man humble and enables him to view the things of time in their true perspective.
19. If thou do at all forget. Literally, “if forgetting thou shalt forget,” a typically Hebrew idiom similar to “thou shalt surely die” (see on Gen. 2:17) and “thou mayest freely eat” (see on Gen. 2:16). This idiomatic expression is used for emphasis.
I testify. Literally, “I affirm to you this day.” In the day of judgment they could not claim that God had not warned them (chs. 30:19; 32:46).
20. Not be obedient. Literally, “not hear.” The word translated “be obedient” means to hear and act accordingly (ch. 7:12).
1. This day. The appointed time for the possession of Canaan was at hand. Israel was to prepare to pass over in the immediate future. The death of Moses and a month of mourning for him were to come before the actual crossing of the Jordan.
2. People. See Num. 13:28, 32.
Anakims. Literally, “the long-necked ones.” They appear to have descended from Anak. Arba, founder of Hebron (Joshua 14:15; 15:13), was a chief of the Anakim. They were scattered over the hill country of Judah (see Num. 13:22, 28, 33).
Children of Anak. After the Israelite conquest none of the Anakim remained in Judah, but a small remnant survived in Philistia (Joshua 11:22; 2 Sam. 21:16; 1 Chron. 20:4). It is thought that Goliath was a descendant of the Anakim (Num. 13:33; Joshua 11:22; 1 Sam. 17:4).
3. He shall destroy. The pronoun “he” is emphatic; “he which goeth over before thee,” “he shall destroy them,” and “he shall bring them down.” The conquest of Canaan was to be achieved by His power—“so shalt thou [Israel] drive them out.” The glory would be His, not theirs (see Joshua 3:1-11; 11:21-23).
4. My righteousness. Their evil conduct since leaving Egypt made it evident that they were not being given the land of Canaan because they deserved it (vs. 7-27).
Wickedness. When Abraham sojourned in Canaan “the iniquity of the Amorites” was “not yet full” (Gen. 15:16). During their 215 years in Canaan, Abraham and his descendants bore a faithful witness to the true God, so that the inhabitants of the land might have an opportunity to amend their ways. It was not until the nations of Canaan had irretrievably sinned away their day of grace that God dispossessed them of their land (see Lev. 18:24-28; 1 Kings 14:23, 24; 21:26).
5. Drive them out. God had originally allotted Canaan to the Amorites and other tribes Israel found there (Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26), but they forfeited their right to it by their evil ways. Should Israel imitate the ways of these nations they too would be driven out. This eventually happened (see Ex. 34:24; Deut. 4:38; 11:23; Joshua 23:5, 9).
6. Stiffnecked. The word translated “stiff” is from a root meaning “to be hard,” “to be heavy,” and thus figuratively “to beobstinate,” “to be stubborn.” A “stiff” neck is a neck that has been hardened (2 Kings 17:14; Neh. 9:16, 17, 29; Prov. 29:1). The same word is used of the “hardening” of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 7:3). God pleads with His people not to “harden” their hearts (Ps. 95:8). This, however, they often did (Ex. 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; see on Ex. 4:21).
7. Rebellious. On the least imaginary provocation they were up in arms against God, so much so that Moses called them “rebels” (Num. 20:10).
8. Also in Horeb. The rebellion at Mt. Sinai was most reprehensible in view of the impressive evidences God had recently accorded them (Ex. 32:7, 8). The rebelled in His very presence.
9. I was gone up. See Ex. 24:18; 34:28.
Eat bread nor drink water. Exodus does not mention fasting in connection with Moses’ first 40 days and nights on Sinai, but does mention it in relation to the second ascent (Ex. 34:28). Fasting often accompanied periods devoted to meditation on sacred themes, for it tends to clarify spiritual vision.
10. Tables of stone. See also Ex.31:18; 32:15, 16.
Day of the assembly. A reference to the notable occasion on which Israel assembled to hear God proclaim His holy law (chs. 10:4; 18:16).
14. Destroy them. Israel’s intentional departure from God’s revealed will left them without excuse before Him, and they no longer deserved His forbearance. Deliberate, premeditated sin may bring the day of probation to a sudden close. There must be a new start, a genuine reformation to avert the hour of judgment (see Ex. 32:10).
16. Molten calf. See Ex. 32:19.
Turned aside. Only a few weeks earlier the people had been commanded not to make graven images (Ex. 20:4) and had promised to obey (Ex. 24:3).
Brake them. The broken tables of stone typified the broken law and the broken covenant (Ex. 32:19). God severed relations with Israel, and the covenant, which had been ratified a month earlier, became null and void. It was only upon the intercession of Moses that Israel was readmitted to divine favor, and that on a conditional and probationary basis (Ex. 32:10-14, 32-34).
18. I fell down. In intercession on behalf of the people. In Oriental lands even today prostration is the posture of complete submission.
As at the first. That is, as during the first 40 days and nights. This was the morning after he had broken up the golden calf (Ex. 32:30-32).
Your sins. Three times prior to this there had been major disobedience on the part of Israel—at Marah (Ex. 15:23), in the Wilderness of Sin (Ex. 16:2, 3), and at Massah (Ex. 17:2-7).
20. Aaron. Aaron considered Moses too severe with people, and thought it better to be more conciliatory, and to meet their wishes in part. But such compromising with sin was ruinous. Little wonder that God was ready to destroy him; his guilt was greater than that of the people. Why God did not do so is not stated. The fact that he was permitted to live and to become high priest testifies to the mercy and long-suffering of God.
21. Your sin. Or, “sinful thing” (RSV), the obvious idea (see Isa. 31:7.
Burnt it. As recorded in Ex. 32:20. The calf had presumably come forth from the fire (v. 24), and was therefore appropriately consigned to the flames once more.
The brook. That is, the stream that flowed from the rock in Horeb, which Moses had struck with his staff (Ex. 17:6), and which constituted their water supply.
22. Taberah. See Num. 11:1-3.
Massah. See Ex. 17:2-7.
Kibroth-hattaavah. See Num. 11:4-34.
27. Remember thy servants. An appeal to the covenant promises as a reason for not yet rejecting Israel, in spite of their perversity (see Ex. 32:13).
28. Not able. See on Ex. 32:12.
1. At that time. That is, the 40 days and nights of intercession spoken of in ch. 9, which followed this command (Ex. 34:1, 2, 28).
Hew thee. The first stone tables were provided by God (Ex. 24:12), the second by Moses.
Make thee an ark. This command was given during the first period of 40 days (Ex. 25:10). Some Jewish commentators havemaintained that there were two arks, one to go before the people in their warfare and another to remain in the tabernacle, but of this there is no evidence whatever. The ark here referred to can be no other than the ark, for now, 38 years later, the tables were still where Moses first placed them (v. 5).
2. I will write. The law of God is ineffective until we individually permit Him to write it anew on “fleshy tables of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3; see also Rom. 8:3, 4). It is only when the world beholds the reflection of the law written upon our hearts that it is instructed and edified. As the tables of stone were inscribed by God, and witnessed to His character and will, so the church bears the inscription wrought by the Holy Spirit, set forth for all men to read (2 Cor. 3:2). Such a life is a monument to God’s grace, a memorial of His power operating in the lives of men.
3. Shittim wood. Literally, “planks of shittim.” This was probably a species of thorny acacia abundant in the vicinity of Sinai.
4. The ten commandments. Literally, “the ten words,” as in Ex. 20:1; 34:28; Deut. 4:13. The word thus translated and used in this sense means a “precept” or an “edict” (Esther 1:19). It is also used of a “sentence” or “saying” of a wise man (Eccl. 1:1; etc.), and of an “oracle” or “word” of God (Num. 23:5, 16; Jer. 1:4, 11; etc.). Its use with respect to the Ten Commandments identifies them as a divine revelation and is a remainder of the fact that God spoke them in the hearing of all Israel (Deut. 4:13).
5. Came down. That is, at the close of the 40 days and nights (Ex. 34:28, 29; cf. Ex. 32:15 and Deut. 9:15).
The ark. Made by Bezaleel under the direction of Moses (Ex. 37:1; see on Deut. 10:1). The ark was placed in the tabernacle, upon its completion, with the two tables of stone in it in harmony with God’s instructions (Ex. 40:20, 21).
There they be. They were still in the ark several centuries later (1 Kings 8:1, 9), during Solomon’s reign. There is no record that they were ever removed from the ark. They are there today (PK 453), and “will be presented before the world as the standard of righteousness” (EGW in RH Jan 28, 1909, p. 8).
6. The children of Jaakan. Bene-jaakan in Num. 33:32.
7. From thence. That is, from Bene-jaakan (Num. 33:32).
Gudgodah. This is Hor-hagidgad, literally, “the mount of the troop” (see Num. 33:32).
Jotbath. Jotbath of Num. 33:34.
Rivers of waters. Here the water was abundant, a fact that no doubt accentuated the lack of it at Kadesh soon after (see Num. 20:3, 4). Jotbath is possibly to be identified with et-Taba, about 22 mi. north of ‘Aqaba.
8. At that time. That is, at Sinai (see vs. 5, 10). Reference is to Moses’ return to camp following his second sojourn of 40 days in the mountain.
Separated. The form of the Hebrew verb here used indicates a solemn act of dedication to the service of God. In a similar way Israel was “separated” from among other nations (Lev. 20:24), and the Levites from among the tribes of Israel (Num. 16:9), thereby making them peculiarly Jehovah’s (Num. 8:14). The Levites had separated themselves from the other tribes in response to Moses’ call to take a stand for God in the midst of apostasy (Ex. 32:26-29). In character they were separate from their brethren, by virtue of their own choice; now, by virtue of God’s choice, they are separated to His service.
To bear the ark. This sacred duty was assigned to the Kohathites, as the camp was moved from one site to another (Num. 3:27, 31).
Stand before the Lord. This is a phrase that denotes consecrated devotion to the Lord’s service, in public ministry. They ministered to God as court officials did before a king. The priests were responsible to God. It is used also of the prophets as ministers of God (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15). It is used also of the attendance of Gehazi upon the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 5:25).
To minister unto him. The Levites were to serve the priests as their assistants (Num. 3:6), and to take general care of the tabernacle (Deut. 10:8). The name “Levite” came to designate the non-Aaronic membersof the priestly tribe. The sons of Aaron are not technically “Levites.” The Levites were consecrated to the duties of the sanctuary service, other than those of worship and sacrifice.
Bless in his name. See Num. 6:23-27, where this expression is used of praising God and blessing the people with uplifted hands. This was a solemn duty performed by priests (Lev. 9:22) as the closing act of the morning and evening service and at other times. On momentous occasions the kings also blessed the people (2 Sam. 6:18). Moses speaks of it again in Deut. 21:5.
9. Hath no part. Inasmuch as the Levites were “separated” to sacred service (v. 8) they could not earn a living by engaging in the more common pursuits. For this reason they were assigned no tribal territory, except for certain cities scattered throughout the other tribes (Num. 18:20; Joshua 13:14, 33; 18:7).
His inheritance. The meaning of this expression is found in ch. 2-4. The tribe of Levi was to receive a share in the sacred offerings brought to Jehovah by the congregation.
11. Arise, take thy journey. Literally, “rise, break camp.” The word here translated “journey” appears also in Num. 10:2. It is used, as well, of breaking or prying whole stones loose in a stone quarry (1 Kings 6:7).
12. God require of thee. This is similar to Micah 6:8. The word translated “require” also means “to desire,” “to request.” The name “Saul” is from the same root, and means “requested,” “desired.”
To fear. Literally, “to reverence,” “to have a pious regard for.” Here reverence is required as a basic principle in the heart of God’s child. A right attitude toward God is the foundation of true religion (see on ch. 6:2).
To walk. See on ch. 8:6. This is a daily walk with God in the power of the Holy Spirit, in pursuit of a perfect character (see Gen. 5:22). The apostle Paul states the same truth in different words (Rom. 6:17, 18, 22).
To love. Where there is true love of God in the heart, a man will not weakly yield himself to temptation (see Gen. 39:9; Deut. 13:4; 1 Kings 8:23, 48; John 15:10).
13. The commandments. From the usual word for “commandments.” The verb root means “to set up,” “to establish.” The principles of the Decalogue are based on the character of God, and thus firmly established. Keeping the commandments is said by Solomon to be “the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13, 14), because they express love toward God and one’s fellow men (Matt. 22:36-40).
14. The heaven. That is, the atmospheric heavens.
Heaven of heavens. A reference to the dwelling place of God (see 1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 68:32, 33; 148:1-4). The apostle Paul spoke of “the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2) and of Christ ascending “far above all heavens” (Eph. 4:10).
The earth. Men should seek to live a life of praise to Jehovah as do the inhabitants of heaven (see Ps. 19:1-6).
16. Be no more stiffnecked. Literally, “not will ye harden your neck any more.” The apostle Paul expresses the same principle in similar terms for the believer today (Rom. 2:29). An uncircumcised heart is impervious to the appeal of the Holy Spirit. The circumcised heart is one that loves God (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4). An uncircumcised heart is lifted up in pride (Lev. 26:41; see also Jer. 9:25; Eze. 44:7, 9). The same expression is used of the ear (Jer. 6:10) and of the lips (Ex. 6:12, 30).
This figurative expression may come from work bullocks, that sometimes withdraw their shoulders and neck from the yoke in an endeavor to back away from the load (see Neh. 9:29; Zech 7:11). Compare the words in Stephen’s presentation to the Jews (Acts 7:51).
17. God of gods. Note the exhortation of the psalmist (Ps. 136:2, 3), and the words of the king of Babylon to Daniel (Dan. 2:47). When Christ removes His priestly attire and assumes His royal garments, at the close of probation, He assumes a similar title, “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16, cf. 17:14).
A great God. Nehemiah uses similar language (Neh. 9:32).
Mighty. From a word denoting a great hero, a mighty warrior (Judges 11:1). It is also applied to the lion as the mightiestamong beasts (Prov. 30:30). The superlative used in Deut. 10:14 of God’s dwelling place is similar to this expression for God.
Regardeth not persons. This statement reads, literally, “not does he lift up faces, and not does he take a bribe.” Jehovah will always deal justly. Sacrifices and gifts do not influence Him to condone willful wickedness (see Ex. 23:8; Lev. 19:15). Note the words of the apostle Peter in his contact with Cornelius, who, like Peter, had received a vision (Acts 10:34, 35).
18. Doth execute. Throughout history, justice has been notoriously slow and uncertain in the East, but Jehovah is not only impartial but also swift to act. In Ex. 22:21, 22 God enjoins His people to act with absolute impartiality toward the “stranger” and the helpless.
19. Stranger. From a noun derived from the verb “to sojourn,” “to tarry,” “to abide.” A better translation would be “sojourner.” The term refers to aliens as temporary residents or as permanent settlers (see Gen. 12:10; 19:9; 47:4; Isa 52:4).
20. Cleave. From a verb expressive of the strongest possible attachment, or clinging to anything. It is used of a man and wife becoming one flesh (Gen. 2:24), and of disease within the bodily tissues (Deut. 28:21, 60).
21. Thy praise. Compare the words in Jer. 17:14 used in connection with healing.
22. As the stars of heaven. Such an increase in population could have been due only to the blessing of God. Moses here echoes the promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:5; cf. Ex. 12:37; Num. 26:51, 62).
1. Love the Lord. Love is the principle on which all worship and service to God are to be based. Love for God makes the carrying out of His requirements a joy. God’s mercy and bountiful blessings, if truly appreciated, inspire a love for Him in man’s heart. True love to God is the reaction of the human heart to His abounding love.
Alway. Literally, “all the days.” Obedience to God must be continuous and not intermittent. A love that vacillates is generally centered on self rather than focused upon Christ.
2. Know ye this day. They had witnessed the mighty power of God in action, and knew something of the boundless resources that were available to them from Jehovah.
Arm. The arm is the symbol of power, and is often used of military forces (Dan. 11:15, 22, 31). Similarly, an army is the strong “arm” of a nation. The “arm of the Lord” is the symbol of His power (see Isa. 52:10; 53:1).
3. Miracles. Literally, “signs” (cf. ch. 4:34). The evidences of divine power that accompanied their deliverance from Egypt ever inspired later generations of Israel, and were often made the theme of song and inspired literature.
5. This place. They were now in the plains of Moab, near Shittim, and opposite the city of Jericho (Num. 25:1; Deut. 1:31).
6. Dathan and Abiram. Outstanding examples of rebellion against God (see Num. 16).
7. Your eyes have seen. Literally, “your eyes are the seers” (see ch. 3:21).
Great acts. In connection with their deliverance from Egypt and their journey to Canaan (see Judges 2:7).
8. All the commandments. Literally, “every commandment,” the singular number stressing perfect obedience as a principle of conduct.
Be strong. In the sense of “girding up oneself” for action, or “holding on tenaciously.” Our strength as Christians lies in love overflowing in obedience to the revealed will of God. Only the obedient can be strong, for God can never give strength to those who deliberately transgress His law.
9. Milk and honey. Compare Ex. 3:8; Deut. 6:3. Milk represents not only the choicest material blessings of earthly Canaan but also the rich blessing of salvation through Christ (Isa. 55:1). The sweetness of honey is compared to the sweetness of God’s law (Ps. 19:10) and all of His revealed will (Eze. 3:3; Rev. 10:9, 10).
10. Wateredst. A figure of speech to denote the contrivances used to lift water from the Nile and its tributary canals, which involved hard labor. But the Promised Land was watered by copious rainfall that never failed so long as Israel was faithful to God (see 1 Kings 8:35; 17:1; 18:17, 18).
As a garden of herbs. The laborious methods of irrigation practiced in Egypt were applicable only to a narrow strip of land adjoining the Nile, whereas the rain of Canaan would make the countryside of Palestine a fruitful field.
11. A land of hills. Not a flat plain like Egypt, which it was possible to irrigate by a system of canals. Palestine could be watered adequately and made fruitful only by the good rains from heaven, and the descent of these rains was assured to the extent that the people were faithful to Jehovah.
Careth for. Literally, “inquireth after,” meaning “to search,” “to investigate.” It is used of searching for lost sheep (Deut. 22:2; Eze. 34:6-8), and of God searching the hearts of men (1 Chron. 28:9).
The eyes of the Lord. A figure of speech representing the unceasing care of God exercised on behalf of His faithful ones (Ps. 33:18; 34:15).
13. Serve him. That is to obey Him. To be acceptable, man’s service to God must flow from love in the heart of man, not from an attempt to acquire righteousness by legal compliance with His requirements (see on ch. 10:12).
14. The first rain. This was the autumn rain, which fell at the time of planting the winter crops, to sprout the seed and give it a good start before the cold of winter set in. It fell in the eighth month, our late autumn (see Ezra 10:9, 13). In a land dependent on rain the seed would not sprout unless the rain fell in its season (Lev. 26:4).
The latter rain. This fell in the spring before the harvest, during our months of March and early April, and brought the crop to full maturity (see Jer. 5:24; Joel 2:23). In his reply to the false charges of Eliphaz, Job speaks figuratively of the importance of the latter rain (Job 29:23). Solomon uses it as an illustration of favors bestowed by a king (Prov. 16:15), and Hosea, of revival and reformation (Hosea 6:2, 3). The tragedy that resulted from a failure of the latter rain is described by Jeremiah in his first message to the backslidden church of his day (Jer. 3:3; cf. Amos 4:7; see on Joel 2:23).
15. Grass. The same word may also mean vegetables for man’s use (Gen. 3:18), as well as grass for cattle, as here (Ps. 106:20; Jer. 14:6).
Thou mayest eat. Healthy, well-fed cattle meant an abundance of food for man as well, and prosperity in general (Lev. 25:19; cf. Joel 1:10-20).
16. Take heed. An abundance of the things of this life, as promised in the preceding verses, may lead the overconfident person to become faithless toward the great Giver of these gifts (see Deut. 6:14; 8:19; Hosea 2:5, 8; 1 Cor. 10:12).
Be not deceived. Often a false sense of values so blinds the hearts of men (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 1:21, 22) that they go vainly in pursuit of things that are only of transient value (Eccl. 1:13, 14; 2:1-11; Matt. 6:28-34; John 6:27-29). It is well to remember that it was a distorted sense of values that led Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. It was when she “saw” something that was not so that she yielded (Gen. 3:6).
17. Shut up. The very opposite of what Jehovah wished to do for His people (Deut. 28:12, 23). Compare a similar expression in Lev. 26:19. The failure of the rains was to be a reminder of sin that must be repented of (1 Kings 8:35).
Perish quickly. Disobedience was to be followed by natural calamities intended to lead the people back to God (Joshua 23:16; Amos 4:6-9).
18. Frontlets. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to bind,” “to surround.” The noun is found only here and in Ex. 13:16; Deut. 6:8. Taking the admonition literally, the Jews bound a phylactery to the forehead, thinking thus to commend themselves to God (see on Ex. 13:9).
19. Teach them. An admonition often repeated to parents (chs. 4:10; 6:7). Rashi, the Jewish commentator, interprets these words to mean that a parent, from the time that a child can speak, shall instruct him in the Hebrew language and in the Torah.
20. Write them. Otherwise their iniquity would be “written with a pen of iron” (Jer. 17:1).
21. Your days. Compare chs. 4:40; 6:2; 11:9.
As the days of heaven. “As long as the heavens are above the earth” (RSV; cf. Matt. 5:18). The eternity of the heavens was a fixed belief among the Jews, and therefore these words became to them a promise of the enduring nature of their inheritance (see Ps. 72:5, 7, 17; 89:29; cf. Job 14:12).
22. Diligently keep. See v. 13 and ch. 10:20.
To cleave unto him. The idea of clinging closely is a figure of affection and loyalty (Ruth 1:14). If we choose to cleave to God nothing can snatch us from His grasp (John 10:28).
23. Drive out. A promise oft repeated (Ex. 23:27; Deut. 7:23). But like all other promises it was contingent upon their obedience to His commands. Had God continued to bless them irrespective of their conduct, they would have become fully confirmed in their evil ways. Thus they would not have been witness to the desirability of cooperating with the true God—which was His purpose in bestowing all these blessings upon them.
Greater nations. Compare chs. 7:1; 9:1. They were the “fewest of all people” (ch. 7:7), but “there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few” (1 Sam. 14:6; cf. Judges 7:2-7).
24. The wilderness. That is, the Wilderness of Zin, lying to the south of Palestine.
Lebanon. The northern boundary.
Euphrates. The northeastern boundary. Compare the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 15:18).
The uttermost sea. Literally, the “hinder” or “western” sea. The word translated “uttermost” is from a root meaning “what is behind,” that is, behind the speaker. In giving directions the Hebrews in Canaan thought of themselves as facing east, and thus the Mediterranean was “behind” them (see Deut. 34:2; Joel 2:20; Zech. 14:8; see on Ex. 3:1). The Mediterranean Sea is called the great sea in Num. 34:6.
25. Fear of you. See the promise of God at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 23:27), and repeated prior to the fall of Jericho (Joshua 2:9, 24).
26. A blessing and a curse. Implying man’s free will and power of choice. God commands, but man is free to choose whether he will obey (see Joshua 24:15; cf. Jer. 18:7-10).
27. A blessing. See ch. 28:2-6 for a detailed statement of what was included in this blessing.
28. A curse. Compare with ch. 28:15-68.
Other gods. See ch. 6:14. Only the God of heaven can bless His people (chs. 7:9; 8:3). The children of Israel were repeatedly warned of the dangers of idolatry (chs. 4:3, 15, 16, 23; 6:4, 14; 7:4, 5, 25; 8:19; 9:12; 10:20; etc.).
29. Brought thee. Compare Deut. 6:10; 7:1; Ex. 13:5, 11.
Mount Gerizim. On the south side of the rich valley in which Shechem is situated, with Mt. Ebal on the north. Gerizim is fertile, and Ebal somewhat barren. Some commentators have seen in this fact the reason for the selection of the one as being appropriate for “blessing” and the other for a “curse.”
30. The other side. That is, on the west side of Jordan in the land of Canaan (see ch. 3:20, 25).
Sun goeth down. A person standing on the east side of Jordan, across from Jericho, may see the sun set in the vicinity of the mountains Gerizim and Ebal, some 40 mi. away.
Gilgal. The name thus translated may come from the verb “to roll.” It means a “wheel” or a “circle.” Some have thought that it may apply to a circle of stones connected with heathen worship. Gilgal near Jericho, here mentioned, was so named because the “reproach of Egypt” was “rolled” from the people at this place (Joshua 5:9-12).
Plains of Moreh. Literally, “beside the terebinths of Moreh” (see on Gen. 13:18; 18:1).
31. Ye shall pass over. Moses expresses certainly concerning their occupation of the Land of Promise. The participle here used has the force of “ye are on the point of passing over.”
1. These are the statutes. Chapters 12:1 to 26:19 have been called The Book of the Covenant. The proneness of the people to forget the requirements of God necessitated a reiteration of His will (see ch. 6:1).
2. Every green tree. Literally, “every tree of luxuriant foliage.” The word translated “green” is from the verb “to grow luxuriant.” Mountains, hills, and groves are favorite places today among heathen nations for the establishing of an idol and its sanctuary (see 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4; Isa. 57:5; 65:7; Jer. 2:20; 3:13; Eze. 18:6, 11, 15; 22:9). Immorality under the guise of religion generally accompanied such worship.
3. Overthrow their altars. This was absolutely necessary if idolatry was to be uprooted (see Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5).
Pillars. The word translated “pillar” refers to a single stone. Altars were built of one or more stones; the “pillar” was a single stone and usually an object of worship. The same word is translated “image” or “images” in Ex. 23:24; 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 16:22; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 3:2; 10:26, 27; Hosea 3:4.
4. Not do so. Such altars, groves, and sacred pillars were not to be employed in the worship of Jehovah. Yet later in their history the children of Israel disobeyed God’s specific command (2 Kings 17:10, 11; Eze. 20:28; Hosea 4:13).
5. Put his name. That is, where He would abide personally—in the Temple. The name Jehovah was sacred, and was not to be exhibited in unworthy places (see Ex. 20:24). Where the name of God is, is a place of refuge (Ps. 48:3; 76:1). The psalms are particularly rich in their references to the sacred name (Ps. 5:11; 29:2; 33:21; 72:17, 19; etc.) Compare the promise of Malachi to the remnant church (Mal. 4:2).
His habitation. The sanctuary in Shiloh and later the Temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 8:17-19, 44, 48; Isa. 18:7; Jer. 3:17). In other instances the reference may be to the Holy Land.
6. Burnt offerings. Frequently mentioned together with “sacrifices,” as they were the most common of all sacrifices (Ex. 10:25; 18:12; Joshua 22:26, 28).
Heave offerings. This is a reference to the “firstfruits,” of corn, wine, oil, and other products of the earth brought in person (Num. 18:11, 12; Deut. 18:4; 26:4, 10). The worshiper had raised it by his own labor and gathered it by his own hand.
Freewill offerings. These were special offerings brought in performance of a vow, or as thank offerings for particular blessings (see Lev. 7:16; 22:18, 21; 23:38; Num. 15:3; 29:39).
Firstlings. See Ex. 13:2, 12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 18:15-17.
7. Ye shall eat. That is, the sacrificial feasts (see Ex. 18:12).
Before the Lord. The priests ate within the precincts of the sanctuary (Num. 18:10), but the people might eat only near the tabernacle, and in that respect in God’s presence (Ex. 18:12; 24:11; Deut. 27:6, 7).
Ye shall rejoice. To “rejoice” before the Lord is an endless theme in the Scriptures (Lev. 23:40; Deut. 16:11, 14; 27:7; Ps. 32:11; 97:12). God in return rejoices over His people (Zeph. 3:14-17).
8. Whatsoever is right. That is, with regard to the sacrificial requirements just referred to. It should always be kept in mind that many of the directives given by Moses to Israel in the wilderness could not be fully carried out until they became a settled community.
In his own eyes. That is, conscientiously, according to the law (see ch. 13:18).
9. The rest. “Resting place” would perhaps be better (see also 1 Kings 8:56; Ps. 95:11). The name Noah is derived from the same root. There are many beautiful promises of rest in the OT: rest in God’s presence (Ex. 33:14), rest from sorrow (Isa. 14:3), and deliverance from foes (Isa. 14:5-7).
10. When he giveth. Jewish commentators apply this to the glorious reign of David (2 Sam. 7:1).
11. Shall ye bring. The Lord commanded sacrifices and offerings to be brought to Him, not because of any inherent virtue in the gifts themselves, but as object lessons by which the people might learn the way of salvation. Without sincerity of heart on the part of the believer, his offering was not acceptable to God (1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11; Jer. 7:22-24).
All your choice vows. Literally, “all thechoice of your vows”—all their offerings in payment of vows. The sacrificial animals they selected were to be physically perfect, with no defect whatever.
12. The Levite. The tribe of Levi was consecrated to God’s holy service, and consequently had no part in the usual vocations by which men make a living. The Levite had no land (ch. 10:9), and therefore received his support from the congregation (chs. 14:27; 16:11, 14; 18:1-8; 26:11).
13. In every place. A beautiful location was not to beguile them. Many such places had no doubt previously been occupied by idolatrous shrines (see Eze. 20:27-29).
14. The place. This injunction has been stated repeatedly (vs. 5, 6, 11) as an emphatic warning and protection against idolatrous worship. Only as God designated a place would their services there offered be acceptable.
15. Kill and eat. This is a modification of the law in effect during the wilderness wanderings, which prohibited the slaughter of animals for food except at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:3, 4). The new law applied to residence in Canaan.
According to the blessing. The reference here is to a common meal. Apparently the hunting of deer was no more uncommon then than today. Because this meal was not a sacrificial one, ceremonial cleanliness was not insisted upon as in the case of a sacrificial meal (Deut. 12:22; Lev. 7:20).
16. The blood. In harmony with strict provisions in effect ever since man was permitted to eat flesh, after the Flood (see on Gen. 9:4-6).
Pour it. The blood of the sacrificial victim was sprinkled upon the altar. Similarly, the blood of an animal slaughtered for food was not to be eaten, but poured on the ground.
17. Thy gates. That is, privately, in their own homes. This is a reiteration of v. 7 concerning the sacrificial meal, in order that there might be no confusion as to the permission granted in v. 15.
The tithe. This cannot be the first tithe, which was used exclusively for the support of the Levites (Num. 18:24). The tithe the people were permitted to eat, though only in the vicinity of the sanctuary and not in their own homes, was a second tithe. Details of this second tithe are given in Deut. 14:22-29.
The firstlings. See ch. 15:19, 20. The male firstlings of flocks and herds were expressly the property of the Lord (Ex. 13:2, 12, 15; Num. 18:15-18) and belonged to the priests’ portion. This offering might never be eaten by the common people. It may be that the firstlings here referred to were female. They were to be shared by the people and the priests, in the Lord’s presence.
Thy vows. These too belonged to Jehovah (Lev. 27:28) and were for the priests (Num. 18:14), when vowed exclusively to Jehovah. Other offerings vowed were eaten in solemn feasts together with the priests, and might be shared with widows, orphans, and the poor.
Heave offering. The first fruits of corn, wine, and oil were also the portion of the priests (Num. 18:12).
19. The Levite. This divine caution against the neglect of those in sacred office is repeated in ch. 14:27. This was necessary because no legal procedures were taken to enforce payment of the tithe. The Levites could be reduced to precarious straits should the people become careless and withhold a faithful tithe. The apostle Paul applies this principle of faithful tithing to the Christian ministry (1 Cor. 9:13, 14).
20. Thy border. In harmony with the promise of Gen. 15:18 (see also Deut. 1:21; 19:8; cf. Ex. 34:24).
21. Too far. During the wanderings in the wilderness the sanctuary was near to the people; therefore all flesh was eaten in the presence of God (Lev. 17:3, 4). With the enlargement of the borders of the nation it would be a difficult and expensive journey for many to appear at one place, no matter where it was appointed. The distance to a central place of worship would for most of the people be too far away for reasonable convenience.
Thy gates. The people might eat of their flocks and herds at home. An elaboration of vs. 15 and 16, and a modification of the strict injunction against so doing while they were in the wilderness.
22. Roebuck. This and the “hart” were not considered sacrificial offerings (v. 15).
The unclean and the clean. Proximityto the altar made the locality holy, and only Levitically clean people might approach the site. When the people ate at their own homes the person who was not Levitically clean might also participate.
23. Be sure. The injunction against blood is most emphatic, and reads literally, “Become thou strong in thy not eating the blood.”
The blood is the life. See on Gen. 9:4; see also Lev. 17:11, 14; 1 Sam. 14:32-35.
25. Go well. A promise frequently made (chs. 4:40; 5:29; 6:18). Undoubtedly both physical and spiritual welfare are included.
26. Thy holy things. A general statement including sacrifices (Ex. 28:38; Lev. 22:2, 3; Num. 18:8) and tithes (Lev. 27:30), and such special offerings as a person might wish to make. This is a reiteration that ceremonial sacrifices must be made at the altar.
Poured out. The blood in these cases was holy, unlike the blood of the animals slaughtered at home, which was poured out upon the ground.
Eat the flesh. That is, after the priests and Levites had received their allotted portions.
28. It may go well. See on v. 25.
Good and right. See ch. 6:18. Upon cooperation with the expressed will of the Lord depended their future happiness as a people and as individuals.
29. Cut off the nations. See Deut. 19:1; Joshua 23:4.
30. Take heed. All manner of temptations would present themselves in the new homeland.
Be not snared. It was a common belief among ancient peoples that it was fatal to neglect the worship of the gods of the particular locality in which a person might find himself (see 2 Kings 17:26). This accounts for the stress God laid upon not worshiping the gods of the country they were about to enter. Such worship was the root of the depravity of the heathen inhabitants about to be driven out or destroyed (Deut. 7:16, 25).
31. Not do so. The rites and ceremonies of idolatry were not to be taken over by God’s people and used in His worship.
Their sons. See Lev. 18:21; 20:2; 2 Kings 17:31; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35. The sacrifice of children by ancient heathen peoples is well authenticated. Isolated cases have even been known of the practice in modern times.
32. What thing soever. This is v. ch. 1 of 13 in the Hebrew text. The admonition applies with equal force to both ch. 12 and ch. 13.
1. If there arise. Preferably, “when there arises.”
A prophet. Literally, a “spokesman” or “speaker.” The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to utter a low voice,” “to announce,” “to pass on information.”
A dreamer. The Hebrew words here used refer to ordinary dreams (Isa. 29:8; Ps. 126:1), to inspired dreams, as those of Jacob (Gen. 28:12), of Joseph (Gen. 37:5-10), of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:1-3), and of false prophets, as here (Jer. 23:25).
Sign. From ’oth, meaning a “sign,” “token,” given, or a “miracle” performed, to attest an inspired message and to encourage those who witness it to cooperate faithfully with the divine will.
Wonder. Literally, a “symbol,” “sign,” “portent,” or “symbolic act,” sent in token of some future event. This refers to a special display of power by a true prophet (Ex. 7:3; 11:9; Ps. 105:5), or by a false prophet, as here.
3. Shalt not hearken. The fulfillment of the “sign” or “wonder” is not to be accepted alone as proof of a prophet’s claims. His message must be in harmony with previously revealed truth (Isa. 8:19, 20). The Jewish people were prone to seek signs, even in Christ’s day (John 6:30), and for this Christ reproved them (Matt. 12:38-45). The apostle Paul also commented on men’s tendency to seek signs (1 Cor. 1:22).
God proveth you. Literally, “God is the one testing you” (see ch. 8:2, 16).
Love the Lord. God demands of His people sincere, undivided love (Deut. 6:5; 30:20; Joshua 22:5; 23:11; Ps. 31:23; Isa. 56:6). Obedience that does not spring from love is without value in God’s sight.
4. Ye shall walk. This is the basic duty absolutely binding upon each believer (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; 11:13, 22; Eccl. 12:13, 14; Micah 6:8). The Hebrew word order is most emphatic. It would read literally, “after Jehovah your God shall ye walk,” meaning after Him and not after anyone else. Fellowship with God is often spoken of as a “walk” (Gen. 5:24).
His commandments. These consist of love expressed in attitudes and actions toward God and man (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Micah 6:8), as Christ later explained (Matt. 5:43-45; 19:16-22; 22:36-40; see also 1 John 4:6-12).
5. Put to death. See 2 Kings 10:19-27 and 11:18 for examples of drastic action in cases of idolatry.
Turn you away. Or, “taught rebellion” (RSV). The Hebrew noun here translated “turn … away” is given as “revolt” in Isa. 1:5; 59:13, “revolted” in Isa. 31:6, and “rebellion” in Jer. 28:16; 29:32.
Put the evil away. Literally, “burn out the evil” (see Num. 11:3; Isa. 10:17; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; etc.).
6. If thy brother. Moses notes here the influence of close relatives on spiritual life (see Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26).
The wife. The one nearest to a man, for they are one flesh (Gen. 2:24). This suggests the care that should be exercised in the choice of a life partner. In times of crisis, particularly during the final chapters of the great controversy between good and evil, it may not be possible to trust even the closest relatives if they do not hold to the faith (Micah 7:5-7; Matt. 10:21).
7. Gods of the people. Today these gods are materialism, wealth, popularity, politics, sports, fashions, amusements, etc.
8. Pity. When eternal destinies are at stake stern measures must be taken. The surgeon’s knife may be painful, yet it may be the only way to save other lives (ch. 7:16; 19:13, 21; 25:12).
9. Thine hand. The witness to the crime, the accuser, must take active part in meting out the punishment. The purpose of this provision was to curtail false accusations based on private grudges or quarrels. A person would hesitate to lead out in the execution of one whom he knew to be innocent.
10. Stone him. See Deut. 17:5; 21:21; 22:21, 24; Joshua 7:25. Literally, “pelt him.” Since Palestine is a stony country, a plentiful supply would always be at hand.
11. Hear, and fear. The severe measures outlined in the preceding verses were designed to protect the church from idolatry (see chs. 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). God would have men understand the heinous nature of idolatry.
12. Thy cities. As in modern times, cities then no doubt tended to become hotbeds of crime and spiritual declension.
13. Children of Belial. Literally, “sons of Belial,” that is, “sons of evil,” “children of wickedness.” The same word, “Belial,” is given in ch. 15:9 as “wicked,” and in 2 Sam. 22:5 and Ps. 18:4 as “ungodly men,” in Job 34:18 and Nahum 1:11 as “wicked,” and in Ps. 41:8 as “evil.”
Gone out. That is, severed themselves from association with God’s people, perhaps with the purpose of setting up a new organization (1 John 2:19). Those who leave the church, thinking to work in opposition to it, would do well to remember that apart from Christ they can have no spiritual life and can accomplish nothing for the kingdom (John 15:4, 5).
Have withdrawn. Rather, “have drawn away” (RSV), that is, made strong efforts to seduce others. The same word is translated “thrust” in vs. 5 and 10, suggesting intense effort.
14. Enquire. Literally, “search,” “investigate,” with the idea of demanding an answer (chs. 17:4; 19:18). It is used in Hosea 10:12 of seeking God.
Make search. Used of intensive and minute investigation (Judges 18:2; Ps. 139:1; Prov. 25:2; Jer. 31:37).
Certain. Literally, “substantiated,” “verified,” “established”—after due investigation (see ch. 17:4).
Abomination. Used of idolatrous practices. For examples see Deut. 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; Jer. 32:35.
15. The edge of the sword. Literally, “the mouth of the sword.” The sword is pictured as having an insatiable mouth (2 Sam. 2:26; 11:25).
16. The street. Literally, “the open place,” that is, the city square, plaza, or market place. This was usually situated nearthe gate of the city (Neh. 8:1, 3, 16; 2 Chron. 32:6), and was used for public gatherings (2 Chron. 29:4; Ezra 10:9).
Every whit. Translated as “whole burnt sacrifice” in ch. 33:10 and “whole burnt offering” in Ps. 51:19. It denoted a sacrifice that might not be redeemed by exchange or other form of substitute payment (see Lev. 27:31).
An heap for ever. A desolate landmark of God’s abhorrence of apostasy and idolatry (see Joshua 7:26; 8:28).
17. The cursed thing. The church today needs to watch that she be not soiled with various types of idolatry, of which covetousness is an example (Col. 3:5; 2 Cor. 9:5).
Fierceness. Literally, “heat,” from the verb “to burn” (see Ex. 22:24). It also appears as “be hot” (Judges 6:39; 10:7).
18. Hearken. A recurring theme in Deuteronomy. It stresses that there is no neutrality in God’s army (Matt. 12:30). The church today needs to pray constantly for divine power to maintain absolute loyalty. Note the apostle Peter’s exhortation for these last days (2 Peter 3:17, 18), Jude’s words of caution (Jude 17-25), and the message of Christ Himself on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:11-13).
1. Children of the Lord. This truth God had earlier made known to Pharaoh (Ex. 4:22, 23). This is an intimately close relationship that brings with it weighty responsibilities (see Isa. 1:2; 63:8, 16; 64:8; Jer. 3:14, 19, 22; 4:22; Hosea 11:1-4; Mal. 2:10).
Cut yourselves. Compare the custom of the worshipers of Baal (1 Kings 18:28). This custom is attested also in the north Canaanite texts from Ras Shamra, the ancient Ugarit, where even the highest god, ’El, gashed himself as a sign of grief and sorrow. See also Jer. 16:6 on gashing one’s body in grief for the dead, and Jer. 41:45; 47:5 for the same demonstration at a time of a public calamity. In some parts of the world today people cut and gash themselves in grief on various occasions.
Baldness. Compare Lev. 21:5 for similar language concerning shaving the head in token of mourning (see Jer. 16:6; Eze. 7:18; Micah 1:16). The custom of shaving, cutting, or tearing the hair in mourning has come down even to modern times in some parts of the world.
2. An holy people. Repeated from ch. 7:6, by way of explanation as to why Israel should destroy the monuments of idolatry they would find in the land. Here the appeal is different, being that of the dignity of a child of God.
A peculiar people. Literally, “a people of possession.” The Hebrew word translated “peculiar” is the noun “possession,” “valued property,” from the verb “to acquire property.” This noun is elsewhere translated “peculiar treasure” (Ex. 19:5; Ps. 135:4; Eccl. 2:8; Mal. 3:17, margin). The KJV rendering “peculiar” has sometimes been misunderstood as meaning “queer.” In the time of the translators of the KJV a man who fished “in a peculiar river” (Shakespeare) was trespassing on private property. Even yet the primary meaning of “peculiar” is “belonging especially or exclusively to an individual,” although it now refers primarily to his “peculiar” or “distinctive” characteristics rather than to his private possessions. Accordingly, it now means “different,” “odd,” “queer.” But this, its common usage today, is colloquial.
Nations. Literally, “peoples,” suggesting the commonwealth of Israel and its institutions, in contrast with other organized states and their institutions.
3. Any abominable thing. See Lev. 11:2-23 for details. This refers to things “abominable” for sanitary, health, and other reasons. Compare the statements of the apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 4:4; Rom. 14:14. Christian principle must regulate eating and drinking.
4. The beasts. The first animals mentioned are those that were commonly offered as sacrifices (see Lev. 1:2, 5, 10).
5. The hart. The animals of this verse were not offered in sacrifice.
6. Parteth the hoof. For a more detailed explanation of vs. 6-8 see Lev. 11:3-8.
9. Fins and scales. See Lev. 11:9-12.
11. All clean birds. Such as the dove, the partridge, and the quail, and presumably others (cf. Lev. 11:13-19).
12. The eagle. The list here given is almost identical with that of Lev. 11:13-23.
13. The vulture. Note the kinds spoken of in Lev. 11:14. The bald-headed vulture is common in the East.
14. Every raven. See Lev. 11:15. The same Hebrew word as for the bird Noah released from the ark (Gen. 8:7), and as fed the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 17:4, 6). The word is from the root “to be black.”
19. Every creeping thing. See Lev. 11:20. Literally, “every swarming thing,” in reference to various flying insects, not birds.
20. Fowls. Literally, “things that fly.” This is not a repetition of v. 11, which deals with birds, but refers to clean insects, such as some species of locusts, considered a delicacy in parts of the Orient even today (see Lev. 11:21, 22).
21. Dieth of itself. Literally, “any carcass,” that is, of an animal that dies of itself, from disease or otherwise. This prohibition is a repetition of Lev. 11:39, 40 (see also Lev. 17:15). The Hebrew word comes from the verb “to sink down,” “to languish,” “to droop and fade.” Examples are: “Wear away” (Ex. 18:18), “wither” (Ps. 37:2), “falleth off” (Isa. 34:4), “make thee vile” (Nahum 3:6).
The stranger. An uncircumcised foreigner who did not practice idolatry and was therefore permitted to live among the Hebrews. “Strangers” were not obliged to practice all Levitical and ceremonial regulations.
An alien. That is, the transient foreigner, one who had not settled permanently among the Hebrews but was passing through for trade or for some other reason.
An holy people. Literally, “a people of holiness.” Their separateness, their consecrated status, was ever to be before Israel as their standard of life. The word “holy” is also used of the character of Jehovah, and of the tabernacle, its instruments, and sacrifices (see Lev. 11:44, 45).
Seethe a kid. For an explanation of this idolatrous custom see on Ex. 23:19 (see also Ex. 34:26).
22. Tithe. The prophet Samuel mentioned tithe paying for the support of a king when Israel clamored for a personal ruler over them (1 Sam. 8:15). Jehovah as supreme Lord of the earth commanded that tithes be paid for the support of His workers. It is generally conceded that the tithe spoken of in these verses is the second tithe, which was to be consumed as a holy feast before the Lord, at the tabernacle. This second tithe is also spoken of in Deut. 14:28 and 26:12-15. The second tithe was distinct from the first tithe, which was devoted exclusively to the support of priests and Levites (Num. 18:21, 26).
The field. The word translated “field” has various meanings, such as “open country,” “pastureland,” “cultivated ground,” “private property,” “city land.” Here it is used in the sense of cultivated land.
23. Eat before the Lord. Compare ch. 12:5-7. It was the second tithe that was to be eaten before the Lord. This was to be done for two years; then in the third (and thus also the sixth) year the arrangements of v. 28 were to apply. The seventh year was sabbatical, in which the land lay uncultivated. No tithe was exacted, for there was no harvest.
In the place. The people would go up to the place chosen by God for religious services and feasts. They would eat together as families, in fellowship before the Lord. Such occasions were designed to promote religious life. Numerous lessons would be stressed, such as conscientious giving for religious and practical purposes, charity to the needy (see on Lev. 7:15), and sacred fellowship before the Lord, the strengthening of family ties, etc.
Tithe of thy corn. This could not refer to the first tithe paid to the Levites, inasmuch as the common people were not eligible to partake of it, but only the priests. Unfaithfulness in tithing the increase could lead to the loss of an entire crop, through the withholding of God’s blessing (Hosea 2:8, 9).
The firstlings. See ch. 12:6. The law of firstlings is given in ch. 15:19-23. Here it is mentioned almost incidentally.
Learn to fear. Conscientious compliance with these divine requirements would impress the worshiper with the fear of the Lord, and would encourage steadfastness in communion with Him. “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28). “In thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple” (Ps. 5:7). “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil” (Prov. 8:13). “The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27). “The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom” (Prov. 15:33). “The fear of the Lord tendeth to life” (Prov. 19:23).
24. Too long. If a family lived far from the sanctuary, or if the roads were difficult, so that the tithe in kind could be taken along only with great difficulty, then the provisions of the following verses were to apply. Here was a practical plan to enable the worshipers to reach the sanctuary expeditiously and without the loss of perishable goods.
25. Turn it into money. Because money is easier to carry than produce.
Bind up. Literally, “besiege,” “lay siege to.” For examples of this, see Isa. 29:3; Jer. 21:4; 37:5. The money was to be bound up in some way and fastened to the wrist or arm.
26. Lusteth after. Better, “desireth.” The same Hebrew word is also translated “desired” or “desireth” (Job 23:13; Ps. 132:13, 14; Isa. 26:9; Micah 7:1). The necessity of supplying worshippers who had come from a distance with the various articles required for the feast led eventually to the setting up of a market in the Temple area in Jerusalem. Such a situation a worldly-minded priesthood would soon corrupt and make a source of personal gain (see Jer. 6:13; 23:11).
Strong drink. The “wine” and “strong drink” here referred to were both fermented. In times past God often “winked” at gross “ignorance” responsible for practices He could never approve. But eventually the time comes when, on each point, God “commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). Then those who persist in their practices in spite of counsel and warning, no longer have a “cloke for their sin” (John 15:22). Prior to that time “they had not had sin” and God did not hold them wholly accountable, even though their deeds were far short of the ideal. His long-suffering is extended to all who “know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Like Paul, who persecuted the church “ignorantly in unbelief,” they may obtain mercy (1 Tim. 1:13).
In olden times God suffered the Israelites to have slaves, but protected the slaves against injustice (Ex. 21:16, 20). Even in the Christian church slavery was not immediately abolished, but masters were instructed to deal kindly with their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1).
In a similar way, God never approved of the practice of divorce or the keeping of a plurality of wives. “From the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). But, for a time, God suffered it, and gave instructions designed to safeguard the rights of women, to mitigate the suffering that resulted from these practices, and to protect the marriage relationship from grosser abuse (Ex. 21:7-11; Deut. 21:10-17). Whereas on the one hand God did not forbid Abraham, for instance, to take a second wife, Hagar, on the other hand He did not protect him from the evils that resulted from such a course of action.
God gave Moses laws designed, not directly to abolish polygamy, but to discourage it (Lev. 18:18; Deut. 17:17), to restrict divorce (Deut. 22:19, 29; 24:1), and to elevate the standard of married life (Ex. 20:14, 17; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Christ made it clear that the OT provisions for a plurality of wives and for divorce were not ideal, but, rather a temporary expedient God suffered to be “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt. 19:4-8). Christ pointed to God’s ideal for Christian homes (Matt. 19:9), which has ever been monogamy (Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). The Christian need not be in doubt as to God’s will in these matters, and is therefore without even the limited excuse men had in OT times.
Thus it was with “wine” and “strong drink.” Neither was strictly prohibited, except to those engaged in religious duties, and perhaps also in the administration of justice (Lev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4, 5). The evils of “wine” and “strong drink” were clearly pointed out, the people counseled to refrainfrom them (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-33), and a curse pronounced upon those who should entice others to overindulgence in drink (Hab. 2:15). But Paul sets before us the ideal by declaring, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), and warns that God will destroy those who defile their bodies (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). Intoxicants “defile the temple of God,” and their use cannot be considered a means of glorifying Him (1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31). Paul abandoned the use of everything harmful to the body (1 Cor. 9:27). There is no excuse today for the argument that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in the use of intoxicants, on the basis that God once permitted them. As already noted, He also once permitted such practices as slavery and polygamy. The Bible warns that “drunkards” will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10).
Desireth. From a different Hebrew verb than “lusteth.” “Desireth” is from a word meaning “to request,” “to ask.”
Eat there. A sacred feast for the entire family “before the Lord,” that is, before the sanctuary.
Thine household. This would include not only the immediate members of the family but also servants (ch. 12:18).
27. The Levite. The Levites, without territory of their own (ch. 12:12), lived in cities of their own, scattered throughout the various tribes, and were to be invited to these sacred feasts (ch. 12:18).
28. The same year. That is, the third year.
Within thy gates. Or, “within your towns” (RSV).
29. The stranger. The “stranger,” like the Levite, was landless. The fatherless and widows also merited special consideration (see chs. 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19; 26:12). The first tithe was strictly for the support of the priests and Levites. The second tithe provided either for a sacred family feast before the Lord or for a table provided by Jehovah for orphans, for the poor, and for “strangers” within the land. Levites were eligible to partake of all such feasts. The provisions among Israel for the needy encouraged the practice of true religion. The apostle James expressed the same principle for the Christian church (James 1:27).
1. Every seven years. That is, in the seventh year, as in v. 12 (see Deut. 31:10; Jer. 34:14). The command of this verse is an extension of Ex. 21:2; Lev. 25:3.
Make a release. Literally, “thou shalt make a remission.” The word translated “release” means a temporary remitting, from the root “to let drop,” “to detach.” It is used in speaking of the land, “But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest,” that is, be released from cultivation and allowed to lie fallow (Ex. 23:11); and in referring to Jezebel’s being thrown down by her eunuchs (2 Kings 9:33). This “release” refers to a manumission from debt, from slavery, and also to a rest for the land from cultivation.
2. Manner of the release. Literally, “matter of the release.” See ch. 19:4, where the same word is translated “case.”
Every creditor that lendeth. Literally, “every master of the loan of his hand,” meaning, “every owner of what his hand lent to some other person.” This is the law to govern the creditor in each seventh year, in respect to poor people unable to repay their loans.
Neighbour. The word also means “friend,” “companion,” “associate.” The verb form means “to associate with.”
Not exact it. The same root in the Arabic has the meaning “to drive vehemently.” Evidently the meaning is that nopressure was to be exerted to recover the debt (see on Ex. 22:25).
Of his brother. Not a blood brother, but a fellow Israelite, so stressing the bonds of fellow feeling and national brotherhood of the Israelites (see chs. 17:15; 19:18, 19; 22:1-4; 23:20, 21; 25:3).
The Lord’s release. That is to say, in honor of Jehovah, to whom the creditor owes all his wealth and well-being, and who has commanded so beneficent a law for the good of the general body of the people.
3. Of a foreigner. That is, an alien who was not a proselyte to the Jewish faith, nor a permanent resident, but merely a temporary sojourner for trading or other purposes. Such a person was not obligated to obey the laws of the seventh year; therefore there was no need to put aside a creditor’s claim upon him (see Lev. 25:1-7, 20-22).
4. Save when there shall be. Literally, “howbeit that not shall there be” (see on v. 11). The word translated “poor” in this verse means one subject to abuse or oppression, one not in a position to defend himself (see Amos 2:6; 5:12).
Greatly bless thee. Faithfulness to God’s directives would mean divine blessings that would eliminate abject poverty, though not necessarily equalize the distribution of wealth. Compare the condition of the early believers of the Christian community (Acts 4:33, 34).
5. Carefully hearken. Particularly in the matter of compassion upon the poor and needy. Faithfulness in carrying out the expressed will of God would bring His blessing upon them.
These commandments. Literally, “this commandment” (cf. chs. 5:31; 8:1).
6. Blesseth thee. The Hebrew verb form is historical, “hath blessed thee,” emphasizing the surety of the promise if Israel should obey (see v. 14; ch. 12:7). The promised blessing is so certain that Moses speaks of it as already accomplished.
Lend. The form of the verb here translated “lend,” means “to give a pledge”; the causative form, as here, means “to cause [others] to give pledges.” This is a promise of material and financial prosperity. They would have been “the head, and not the tail” (ch. 28:13). Had Israel, by compliance with God’s wise requirements, become fit representatives of Him, they would have become the leading commercial and political power of antiquity.
Not borrow. Literally, “not give a pledge.” Obedience to God’s instructions would prevent their enslavement to any nation, for to be in debt is to run the risk of being enslaved (Prov. 22:7).
7. A poor man. Literally, “a needy one.” Poverty always seems to exist (Deut. 15:11; Matt. 26:11); yet much can be done to reduce it and to alleviate the suffering that accompanies it. So long as there is a diversity of talents among men there will always be some in need of help. Members of the church could do much more for those less fortunate about them, and yet not do less by way of public evangelism.
Thy gates. Or, “your towns” (RSV; see ch. 12:12).
Shut thine hand. The verb here translated “shut” also means “to withdraw.” It is as if a man placed his hands in his pockets, or behind his back, refusing to extend them forward in a gesture of generosity. In 1 John 3:17 the apostle John comments literally, “whoever may possess the means of life of this world, and should see his brother having need, and should shut up his bowels from him, how abides the love of God in that one?” The anticipated answer is that divine love cannot abide in the heart of such a person.
8. Open thine hand wide. A word picture of a bountiful spirit. The Hebrew form is emphatic, “opening thou shalt open thy hand to him.” Compare the words of Christ (Matt. 5:42; Luke 6:30-34). One of the hardest lessons for many to learn is that selfishness is self-defeating.
Sufficient for his need. Enough is to be lent to meet the emergency. The genuine case requires compassion (Matt. 18:33).
9. Eye be evil. An “evil,” or selfish, “eye” affects the entire character (Deut. 28:54, 56; see also Prov. 23:6).
Cry. Compare Ex. 22:22, 23.
Sin unto thee. Literally, “sin in thee” (see chs. 23:22; 24:15).
10. Not be grieved. Literally, “not beevil.” The same verb is translated “sad” (1 Sam. 1:8, RSV), “evil” (Deut. 28:54, 56), and “ill” (Job 20:26). The apostle Paul spoke of the same attitude of mind in 2 Cor. 9:7, saying literally, “Each according as he purposes in his heart, not out of annoyance, or of necessity.”
All. The Lord takes note of all that a man does; nothing goes unrewarded. There is to be an “abounding,” or, as Paul says, literally, “an overtopping” in all we do for God (2 Cor. 8:7, 9).
11. Never cease. This is referred to by Christ in Matt. 26:11. The need for generosity and Christian charity will never cease. James speaks of the poor as the ones God has chosen for Himself (James 2:5). The needy poor have a claim on those who are not poor; and the assistance they require should be given ungrudgingly, and not with a spirit of regret. The seeming contradiction here with v. 4 is due to the fact that v. 4 looks forward to the result of cooperating with the plan here set forth (see on v. 4). But the time would never come when there would be no opportunity to assist their fellow men.
Open thine hand wide. Literally, “opening, thou shalt open thine hand,” the Hebrew form of emphasis. The noun form of the word thus translated means “the doorway” of a tent (Gen. 18:1, 2, 10), of a private house (Ex. 12:22), of the tabernacle (Ex. 38:8), and of a king’s house (2 Sam. 11:9). To “open thine hand wide” thus implies a sharing of the good things of one’s home.
12. If thy brother. Compare Ex. 21:2-6; Jer. 34:9-14. A man could make himself a slave, or be made one by court order. In any case the Israelite slaves were to be well treated by their brethren; and if not redeemed earlier, were set free in the seventh year. See Ex. 21:20, 26, 27; Lev. 25:39, for restrictions on the master’s treatment of slaves.
The seventh year. The sabbatical year affected all walks of life (Lev. 25:2). But the seventh year, that saw the slave’s release, should not be confused with the years that find their completion in the sabbatical year. The year of the slave’s release followed six years of servitude, and might or might not coincide with the sabbatical year. Slavery was an institution of the social order of the times. But God ordained laws to protect slaves as children of God, as brethren in the religious community, and as citizens in a social order which had as its goal, free men.
13. Empty. That is, “empty-handed.” The root of the word translated “empty” often means “in vain” (Lev. 26:16, 20). Here it refers to effort put forth that brought no profit. To send a freed slave away without sufficient means to make a new start as an independent, free member of society, would be to make a vain gesture. He would likely fall back into slavery again. See the promise of God to the faithful (Isa. 65:23; cf. Gen. 31:42; Ex. 3:21).
14. Furnish him liberally. Literally, “furnishing a necklace thou shalt furnish him a necklace.” The word translated “furnish” is used of “the chains that were about their camels’ necks” (Judges 8:26). The natives of the East still place ornamental chains on their cattle. See the same word for “chain” in Prov. 1:9; S. of Sol. 4:9; Ps. 73:6. The Hebrew master was commanded to “adorn,” or equip, a slave as he felt his master’s service.
God hath blessed thee. Compare chs. 7:13; 12:15; 16:17. In proportion to God’s blessing upon him, the master was to exercise liberality toward the slave now set free.
15. A bondman. A forceful argument from experience, the strongest possible motive for generosity (see Deut. 16:12; 24:18, 22; cf. Matt. 10:8; Matt. 18:23-35). The Biblical laws pertaining to servitude not only lightened the lot of the slave but eventually led to his freedom. No Israelite was to be kept in permanent slavery. These rules included the following provisions: (1) The Hebrews slave could not be forced to serve longer than six years, and was to be released in the seventh year. (2) Harsh treatment by the owner was strictly frowned upon (Lev. 25:39-43). (3) If, in a fit of temper, the owner inflicted serious bodily injury on the person of the slave, such a slave was to receive his freedom (Ex. 21:26). (4) Unreasonably severe punishment meted out to a slave would subject the owner to legal penalties (Ex. 21:20, 21). (5) During servitude, the termsof service were to be so liberally administered that it would be possible for the slave to acquire property or sufficient means to redeem himself (Lev. 25:49). The operation of these principles would tend steadily to eliminate the unfair and unfortunate lot of the slave. In fact, the lot of the Hebrew “slave” would hardly be recognizable as slavery by the nations round about Israel.
16. I will not go away. Here is the case of a man who became so attached to his master that he preferred to remain (see on Ex. 21:5). When a man thus declined to become free, he voluntarily chose perpetual servitude. This provision, if carried out in conformity to the rules laid down by God (see on v. 15), might prove a blessing to individuals incapable of administering their own affairs. They thus placed themselves permanently under the protection of one who could administer their affairs for them, and who had proved his kindly care of his slaves. The same considerate provisions that had applied to temporary servitude were to be continued.
He loveth thee. Generous and considerate treatment had won the man’s heart. In servitude he had found a measure of freedom sufficient to satisfy him. The motive behind his desire to remain was love.
17. Take an aul. For details, see Ex. 21:1-6. By this symbol the man was bound forever as an obedient servant to the household of his master.
For ever. That is, as long as the man should live (see on Ex. 21:6).
Thy maidservant. This seems to contradict Ex. 21:7, “She shall not go out as the menservants do.” But it is not stated here that she should not go out at all, but rather that she should not be released on the same basis as the menservants. The conditions for her release are given in Ex. 21:8-11; cf. Jer. 34:9.
18. Not seem hard. A reference to vs. 13, 14.
Worth. A hired laborer would cost twice as much as a slave.
Bless thee. God is ever ready to bestow rich blessings upon men, but He can do so only for those who appreciate His love enough to love and obey Him (1 John 4:19; John 14:15; 15:10). Should God do otherwise, and bless those who do not serve Him, He would be encouraging them to continue in disobedience.
19. Firstling males. The law was established at the Exodus from Egypt that all first-born males of both man and beast belonged to Jehovah (see on Ex. 13:12-15; Num. 18:15-18).
Sanctify unto the Lord. This does not contradict Lev. 27:26, “The Lord’s firstling, no man shall sanctify it.” The meaning here is that the owner shall recognize the firstling as Jehovah’s property, and must under no circumstances use it for any other purpose. Lev. 27:26 means that no man shall take what the Lord already considers as His—the firstling—and present it in payment of a personal vow.
Do no work. The male firstlings were sanctified to Jehovah. They were not to be put to ordinary secular labor, even though they might remain temporarily in a man’s possession. The firstling females were not dedicated to the Lord as were the males. They might be offered as peace offerings, with the offerer partaking of them in a sacrificial meal and giving a portion also to the priests. This is in harmony with the principle of the second tithe (ch. 14:23).
Nor shear. A firstling sheep was not to be shorn, for it was dedicated to a holy use. God has claim on the first of all we possess: our life, our affections, our physical, mental, and spiritual powers, our service, our property.
20. Year by year. At the three great annual festive occasions, when all adult males were to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem. Peace offerings and sacrificial feasts were always celebrated at these occasions.
Thy household. Compare chs. 12:6, 7, 17, 18, 26; 14:23. The Levite and the stranger were to be asked to share in these sacred feasts.
21. Any blemish. The blemishes are enumerated in Lev. 22:21-24 (see Deut. 17:1).
Lame. This blemish is not mentioned in Lev. 22:21-24, but Mal. 1:8 mentions the offering of a lame animal as “evil.”
Not sacrifice it. It was not acceptable as a dedicated animal.
22. Within thy gates. It was partaken of at home as an ordinary meal. NearbyLevites, strangers, and the needy probably shared the meal.
The unclean. Ceremonial purity was not required, as when a sacrificial animal was eaten before the Lord, for this was common food and not a sanctified offering (see ch. 12:15, 20).
23. The blood. Compare Deut. 12:16, 23, 24 see on Gen. 9:4.
1. The month of Abib. Literally, “the month of the young ears of grain” (Ex. 9:31; Lev. 2:14). This Jewish month, later called Nisan, began between late March and late April. Abib was appointed by God the first month of the ecclesiastical Israelite year (Ex. 12:2; cf. 13:4; 34:18).
The passover. Of the three commanded annual feasts the Passover was the first (Ex. 23:14-17). It was kept in Abib, or Nisan, for that was the month in which God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt. For seven days the people ate unleavened bread, as upon their hurried departure from Egypt (see on Ex. 12:34). No leaven was to remain in their houses, nor any of the Passover lamb after the first night. After the Passover animal had been eaten, the people returned to their tents. For six days they ate unleavened bread, and held a convocation on the seventh day, which was observed as a sabbath (see also Ex. 12:1-28).
By night. It was early morning (PP 281) when the children of Israel actually left Egypt (Ex. 12:29-34). The command to prepare for instant departure, and Pharaoh’s demand that they go immediately, were given the night before (Ex. 12:11, 12, 31-33).
2. Sacrifice the passover. The Passover sacrificial animal was to be either a lamb or a kid of the goats (Ex. 12:5). Note that Ex. 12:3-6 prescribes a male animal of the first year, either a lamb or a kid, to be consumed at one meal. Later, a lamb was invariably chosen as the victim, rather than a goat.
The place. The sanctuary of the Lord was the place at which they were to slay the Passover, a command reiterated again and again (ch. 16:2, 6, 7; cf. vs. 11, 15, 16 for the other feasts).
3. No leavened bread. Leavened bread was prohibited with any meal offering (see on Lev. 2:1), inasmuch as leaven represents fermentation and decay, and hence corruption.
Seven days. See Ex. 12:15, 18-20; 13:6, 7; 23:15; Lev. 23:6.
Affliction. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to be bowed down,” “to be frustrated.” The reference here is to the servitude of Israel in Egypt (Ex. 3:7; 4:31).
In haste. The expression thus translated is from a word meaning “to be alarmed,” “to be in trepidation.” The corresponding Arabic verb means “to hasten,” “to urge,” “to incite.” The meaning here is that Israel hurried away in great alarm. Compare the same root rendered as “tremble” (ch. 20:3). Compare Ex. 12:11, 34, 39, where it is stated that Israel did not take time to put leaven in their dough (see Isa. 52:12).
4. All night. See Ex. 12:10; 34:25; Num. 9:12 (cf. Ex. 23:18).
5. Mayest not sacrifice. In the future the sacrifice might not be made in any private home or place, but only at the place appointed by Jehovah (see ch. 12:5, 11). The first Passover was eaten in the homes of the people in Egypt, on the eve of their flight. There was then no sanctuary, no holy place of assembly, to which they could gather.
6. At even. That is, between the twoevenings (see on Ex. 12:6). The evening sacrifice having been offered, the Passover victim was slain.
The season. Literally, “the appointed time” or “the place of meeting.” Compare “in the time appointed” (Ex. 23:15); “in the time of” (Ex. 34:18); “at a time appointed” (Joshua 8:14). The reference in this instance is to the appointed hour, namely, that of the Exodus from Egypt.
7. Roast and eat it. See on Ex. 12:8, 9. The verb here translated “roast” is given twice as “bake” (Num. 11:8; 2 Sam. 13:8) and twice as “roast” (Deut. 16:7; 2 Chron. 35:13), but in all other instances of cooking is translated “boil,” “seethe,” “sodden.” Apparently, its root meaning was “to ripen,” as in “the harvest is ripe” (Joel 3:13) and “ripe grapes” (Gen. 40:10). Inasmuch as in all cases the idea is that of ripening or bringing to the point of full preparation, by heat, “roast” may be more appropriate here. Compare the expression “roast with fire” (Ex. 12:9) and the later account of a Passover that contrasts the roasted lamb with the other offerings, which were boiled (2 Chron. 35:13).
Tents. Here meaning, “homes.” This custom remained even after Israel no longer wandered about, but had become a settled nation in Palestine, with permanent homes (see Judges 7:8; 2 Sam. 19:8; 1 Kings 12:16). They were to remain overnight in the place where they ate the Passover. In the morning those who had joined with other households in the paschal lamb might return to their own homes (see on Ex. 12:4).
8. On the seventh. The feast lasted for seven days, as did the eating of unleavened bread (Ex. 12:15; Ex. 13:6; Lev. 23:6; Num. 28:17). The statement here made must mean that after unleavened bread had been eaten for six days, the children of Israel were to hold a “solemn assembly,” while continuing to eat unleavened bread.
A solemn assembly. The word thus translated is from a verb meaning “to restrain,” “to enclose,” “to shut up,” especially for religious purposes (see Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; 2 Chron. 7:9; Neh. 8:18, with reference to the Feast of Tabernacles; cf. Amos 5:21).
Do no work. That is, they were to perform no ordinary labor (Num. 28:25; cf. “work” in 2 Kings 22:5, 9).
9. Seven weeks. See Lev. 23:15. This expression gives the name “feast of weeks” to this festival (see on Deut. 16:10). By the Jews of the Dispersion it was later called “Pentecost” (Acts 2:1).
Begin to number. These seven weeks began at the time of the barley harvest (see Joshua 3:15; 5:10; see also Lev. 23:15).
10. Feast. From chag, a word that means more than “festival.” It includes the idea of a religious pilgrimage, and is, in fact, derived from a verb meaning “to make a pilgrimage,” “to take a journey to an object of reverence.” The Arabic haj describes the sacred pilgrimage of the Moslem to Mecca.
Feast of weeks. The names “feast of harvest” and “day of the firstfruits” are also given to this festival (see Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Num. 28:26).
A tribute. The word thus translated occurs nowhere else in the OT. The equivalent Aramaic word means “sufficiency.” The idea may be of an offering proportionate to a man’s station and means in life. The derivation of the word is obscure.
11. Rejoice. A generous spirit was to be shown toward those in need (chs. 12:7, 12, 18; 14:29). This would bring joy to him who gave and to him who received.
13. Feast of tabernacles. The last annual Jewish feast. All males were commanded to be present each year (see v. 16). The word “tabernacles” is translated from the word for “booths” (Gen. 33:17; Lev. 23:42, 43; Neh. 8:14-17; Jonah 4:5). The verb means “to weave together,” “to cover.” The derived noun is, then, a “covering” or “booth” of branches woven and interlaced to form a temporary yet adequate cover. The Feast of Tabernacles was observed at the close of the harvest, when the grain and the grapes of the vineyard had been gathered and processed.
14. Rejoice. The end of the vintage season would be a happy time (see Isa. 16:10). The wheat harvest had been gathered about four months earlier; the vintage came in September or October.
15. A solemn feast. Note the various offeringscommanded for this period (Num. 29:12-35). An eighth day is spoken of in Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35.
16. Three times. See on Ex. 23:14-17; see also Ex. 34:18, 22, 23. Note that Ex. 34:24 adds the promise that the Lord would keep their lands inviolate during the absence of the people from their homes. The expression “before the Lord” reads literally, “at the face of Jehovah,” meaning access to His presence. Note the same expression used of a face-to-face meeting with royalty (2 Sam. 3:13; 14:28, 32, 2 Kings 25:19; Esther 1:14). The psalmist speaks of the ecstasy of the believer at beholding the face of God (Ps. 17:15).
Empty. That is, “empty-handed” (RSV). The people should appear in the presence of Jehovah with such gifts as were worthy of the blessings received in their harvests (see Ex. 23:15; 34:20). See on v. 10.
17. Give as he is able. Literally, “according to the gifts of his hand.” Though he should give liberally, according to the blessings received, he should not give to the extent of impoverishing himself and creating hardship for his family.
18. Make thee. Literally, “appoint for thyself.” Compare the appointment by Moses of judges to settle disputes among the people (Ex. 18:21-26; Deut. 1:12-18).
In all thy gates. Or, “in all your towns” (RSV). This refers to the appointment of local judges. Judicial procedure was later augmented by the appointment of the priests as a court of final appeal (ch. 17:8, 9).
Just judgment. Literally, “judgments of righteousness” (see ch. 1:16).
19. Not wrest judgment. See Ex. 23:6, 8 (cf. Deut. 24:17; 27:19; 1 Sam. 8:3; Isa. 10:1, 2).
Not respect persons. Literally, “not recognize faces” (see Ex. 23:1-3; Lev. 19:15; Ps. 82:1-5).
A gift. Specifically, a bribe (see Ex. 23:8; 1 Sam. 8:3; Job 15:34; Ps. 26:10).
20. Altogether just. Literally, “righteousness,” a characteristic Hebrew form of stating the point emphatically.
Follow. That is, as if in pursuit of it (Gen. 35:5; Lev. 26:7; 2 Sam. 2:19).
21. A grove. Heb. ’asherim. The word is used more than 30 times in the OT and is consistently rendered “groves” in the KJV. The word is always used in connection with idols (see on Ex. 34:13). It should be translated “sacred trees” or “wooden poles.” These were dedicated to the pagan goddess Asherah, while the stone pillars were objects of worship dedicated to Baal.
22. Any image. Literally, “a pillar.” Such “pillars” were set up by the heathen as objects of worhsip (see Gen. 28:18). The same word appears in Ex. 23:24; 34:13; Lev. 26:1; etc. These “pillars” were usually of stone, and were devoted to idolatrous worship, especially to Baal. In many instances they were connected with the depravity of phallic worship. In contrast, a pillar was set up by Jacob as a memorial of God’s visitation to him (Gen. 28:18, 22; 31:13; 35:14).
1. Blemish. An imperfect sacrifice would not properly typify Christ (see 1 Peter 1:19). The law regarding the perfection required in sacrificial animals is given in detail in Lev. 22:17-25. See also Mal. 1:7-12, where the prophet complains of imperfect sacrifices being offered, with the connivance of a corrupt priesthood. Anything less than the best is unworthy of being placed in God’s service. God is entitled to man’s best; and to withhold it is to show contempt for Him. It is presumptuous to offer God that which is of little value, or which costs us little or nothing.
Any evilfavouredness. Literally, “anything evil.” This explains the preceding sentence, referring to disease or illness in an animal.
3. Host of heaven. The primary, and inmany ways the worst, form of idolatry was the worship of the heavenly bodies (see Deut. 4:19; Job 31:26, 27).
Not commanded. Rather, “forbidden” (RSV).
4. The thing certain. Church discipline must be based on certainties, not on rumors. Hearsay should not be accepted as evidence. If one presumes to make an accusation, he should be required to provide proof in substantiation of it before action is taken (see on v. 6).
5. Thy gates. See ch. 16:18. For “gates,” meaning the structure of the entrance into the city. Here, in rooms built for the purpose, elders, judges, and the king sat officially (see on Gen. 19:1).
Stone them. See Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:36; Deut. 22:24; Acts 7:58, 59.
6. Witnesses. A person was not to be condemned on the testimony of a lone witness (Num. 35:30), lest spite or the desire for revenge should influence a decision.
7. The hands. See ch. 13:9. This places a grave responsibility upon the witnesses. The sin of bloodguiltiness would rest upon one who bore false witness, for he would become the chief executioner. This law tended to foster truthfulness among witnesses, and care in the making of accusations.
8. Too hard. That is, for the local courts that were to be established in all their cities (ch. 16:18). The Hebrew reads, literally, “too wonderful,” “surpassing,” or “unusual.” The same word appears in 2 Sam. 1:26; Ps. 118:23; Prov. 30:18; Micah 7:15. The reference is to some point of law that was not clear to the local judges.
Between blood and blood. That is, the shedding of blood that resulted in death—was it accidental? premeditated? a willful murder? (see Ex. 21:12-14). The decision in such a case would determine whether or not the accused would be admitted to a city of refuge.
Plea and plea. A reference to civil suits, involving personal property, debts, and matters of personal loss and injury.
Matters of controversy. Cases that could not be settled in the lower courts, and therefore would be transferred to the Levitical courts.
9. The priests. Compare chs. 19:17; 21:5. The king (2 Sam. 14:13; 15:2) or some person appointed by him (2 Sam. 15:3) might act as judge. The priests were the custodians of the law (Mal. 2:7), and the king and his appointees were the executors of it.
10. According to the sentence. Literally, “according to the mouth [command] of the word” (as in Gen. 45:21).
They. That is, the judges.
11. According to the sentence of the law. Literally, “upon the mouth of the divine directive,” “mouth” again meaning “command,” as in v. 10. The word translated “law” means divine directives (“instructions,” RSV), in this case in respect to decisions made on civil cases up for trial (see ch. 33:10).
Not decline. Literally, “not turn aside” (Ex. 32:8; Judges 2:17; Prov. 13:14).
12. Do presumptuously. The root of the word thus translated means “to boil up,” “to seethe,” to act rebelliously, and the derived Hebrew noun, as here, “insolence,” “pride,” “presumptuousness” (see Deut. 18:22; 1 Sam. 17:28; Jer. 49:16).
13. Shall hear, and fear. The procedure outlined was intended to teach the people proper respect for duly established authority. This in turn would inculcate due regard for divine authority and for the directives given through selected channels.
14. A king. The true leader, or commander of the people, was Christ (Isa. 55:1, 4). The time came in the experience of Israel when they felt it imperative to have an earthly king like the surrounding heathen nations (1 Sam. 8:5; 12:12). But God was their true King, under the theocracy (Ps. 5:2; 10:16; 29:10; 44:4; 68:24; Zeph. 3:15).
15. God shall choose. The choice of a king over God’s people was not to be left to the pleasure of the people. See the words of the prophet Samuel to Saul (1 Sam. 10:1, 19, 22, 24). The mind of the Lord is seen in David’s words respecting his successor (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:1)
Among thy brethren. The man to be chosen must be a Hebrew. The people might possibly wish a foreigner to rule over them.
16. Not multiply horse. Solomon did not heed this command (1 Kings 4:26). Dependence upon cavalry indicated a lack of faith in the power of God to keep His people. This usually accompanied a lapse into rebellion and sin (see Isa. 2:6-8; Amos 4:10).
Return to Egypt. Egypt was recognized as a source of supply for horses (1 Kings 10:28, 29). The command means that agents were not to be sent to Egypt to buy horses. Here again Solomon greatly sinned. As a matter of fact, the topography of Palestine, being mountainous, did not lend itself readily to the movement of large bodies of horsemen. Therefore to build up a large force of cavalry would mean alliances with outlying nations and reflect a desire to conquer adjacent territories. The spiritual destiny of Israel would be lost in the desire for worldly conquest.
17. Multiply wives. David transgressed this command (2 Sam. 5:13), but Solomon much more so (1 Kings 11:3). Many marital alliances entered into by the latter were apparently motivated by political interests (1 Kings 11:1, 3).
Silver and gold. Wealth is not of itself evil. It can, however, prove a snare when it takes the place of God in a man’s heart and life. The private and public life of the king was limited by definite conditions. The things for which the king was to be outstanding are given in the following verses.
18. Write him a copy. Literally, “write himself a duplicate.” One great distinction that was to mark the ruler of Israel was his singlehearted devotion to the divine precepts (see Joshua 8:32). Making such a “copy” would demonstrate his faith in the inspired Word, and his determination to be guided by it. This would strengthen the people’s confidence that their earthly king was humbly in submission to the King of kings.
19. He shall read. Study of and meditation upon God’s Word were to characterize the monarch (see Joshua 1:8; Ps. 1:2; 119:1, 2, 9, 15, 16, 36).
Fear. Literally, “tremble,” not in the sense of terror, but of awe and reverence. This represents supreme and profound respect. Compare with Deut. 4:10; 6:2; 14:23; 28:58; Ps. 61:5; 86:11; Isa. 59:19; Mal. 3:16; 4:2.
20. Not lifted up. See ch. 8:2, 14. A man needs the grace of God to avoid becoming high-minded. It is not easy for a king or other leader to think of himself as the servant of his people.
Prolong his days. See ch. 4:26, 40. Only a truly converted man could order his life according to the obligations outlined for a monarch in this chapter. Guided by the divine instructions recorded in the book of the law, he would become a pattern to his people, a living transcript of God’s will for men.
1. All the tribe of Levi. Better, “that is, the tribe of Levi.”
No … inheritance. Previously stated in Num. 18:20 and Deut. 10:9. Jewish commentators refer this to priests who could serve in the sacred office, and to those of the tribe of Levi who could not serve because of physical defects. Though they might not serve, they too had part in the sustenance provided for the priesthood.
The offerings. The burnt offerings belonged to Jehovah, and were not included in the inheritance of the priests. But a share in all other offerings was theirs (Num. 18:9-11, 18, 19).
His inheritance. That is, the inheritance of Jehovah, in whose presence Moses was speaking, and who had reserved certain sacrificial animals for Himself (see Num. 18:8, 9, 12-15).
Their inheritance. The Lord was the “inheritance” of the entire tribe of Levi (see Num. 18:20; Joshua 13:14, 33; 18:7; Eze. 44:28). From the “inheritance”; apportioned to the other tribes each family was to provide for its temporal needs. Levi had no such “inheritance”; instead, the Lord Himself would provide for them.
3. A sacrifice. Specifically, a peace offering (Lev. 17:5, 8; Num. 15:3).
The shoulder. Mentioned together with the breast in Lev. 7:32-34.
Two cheeks, and the maw. Not mentioned previously, and so presumably added at this time. The “maw” is the rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestive process is completed. The parts given here are in addition to the wave breast and heave leg of the peace offering spoken of in Lev. 7:14, 15, 23, 30, 31; Num. 18:11; cf. 1 Sam. 2:12-17.
4. The fleece. This is the only instance in which the fleece is mentioned as part of the “inheritance” of the Levites.
5. Out of all thy tribes. See Deut. 21:5; 1 Sam. 2:28.
6. If a Levite come. The priests and Levites received 48 cities in Israel (Num. 35:7). Many would live at a distance from the sanctuary, but whenever they came they were to be granted the privilege of ministering according to their assigned family duty. The priesthood had not as yet been divided into courses (see 1 Chron. 23:6; 24:1; 2 Chron. 8:14).
Come. That is, intending to minister in the sanctuary.
The place. The sanctuary, His dwelling place (see ch. 12:5).
7. Minister. That is, be in attendance at the altar and perform other duties of the sanctuary. Though a Levite from another part of the country, he was to be received and permitted to participate in the priestly duties, equally with the resident Levites.
8. Like portions. He was to share equally in all dues received.
His patrimony. What was his of the gifts that the people brought he might keep wholly for himself. The priests were free to buy and sell property (1 Kings 2:26; Jer. 32:7, 8. Upon inheriting his father’s estate, a son would be under no obligation to share it with other priests at Jerusalem (see Lev. 25:33).
9. The abominations. An oft-repeated injunction (see on ch. 13:14).
10. Maketh his son. Rather, “burns his son” (RSV). See Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5. This was one of the abominations referred to in Deut. 12:31. In later years it was widely practiced in Israel (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; Jer. 32:35). The worship of Moloch first produced illegitimate children, and then slew them—both acts were considered most pleasing to him. From early times fire was worshipped and honored by heathen peoples as a god. Fire worship survives in Persia today.
Useth divination. Literally, “the diviner practicing divinations.” Apparently used in connection with the fire ceremony (2 Chron. 33:6; Eze. 20:31). This is thought to have been done by drawing lots consisting of headless arrows (see Eze. 21:21).
An observer of times. Literally, “an observer of the clouds.” The “observer of times” may therefore have been one who made predictions based on a study of clouds (see also Lev. 19:26; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6).
Enchanter. Literally, “whisperer” or “hisser,” from a root meaning “to hiss.” The derived noun form, meaning “serpent,” is used 31 times in the OT (Gen. 3:1; Micah 7:17; etc.). This is, perhaps, a reference to the practices of spiritualism.
Witch. See 2 Chron. 33:6. Another noun from the same root is “witchcraft” (see 2 Kings 9:22; Micah 5:12; Nahum 3:4).
11. Or a charmer. Literally, “a tier of knots,” referring to the wearing of magic cords and knots as spells against evil. Such a custom is common in the East today. The word translated “or” should be “even,” making “charmer” explain the last word of v. 10.
A consulter. Literally, “one who inquires of an ’ob,” a “medium” (RSV). An ’ob is the skin of a sheep or a goat usually used as a water bottle by men who supply villagers with water from a well or a spring (see on Lev. 19:31). The reference here may be to the hollow sound produced by such a dry skin, and so refer to the whispering, chirping, and muttering of a familiar spirit that has gained control of “the consulter” or medium. It may involve the practice of ventriloquism, anciently practiced by a depraved priesthood to deceive people. For the use of this word in reference to a skin bottle see Job 32:19. In Ugaritic literature recently recovered at Ras Shamra (see p. 128) the word ’ob specifically means “departed spirit.”
Wizard. Literally, “a knower,” from the verb “to know.” Here it refers to those who claimed to have wisdom from other than human sources.
Necromancer. Literally, “a consulter with the dead.” There appears to be little if any difference between a “necromancer” and a “consulter with familiar spirits.”
13. Perfect. The same Hebrew word is here translated in various ways. The verb means “to be complete,” “to be finished.” The adjective, also used here, is rendered variously as “without blemish” (Ex. 12:5), “complete” (Lev. 23:15), “without spot” (Num. 19:2), “sincerely” (Judges 9:16), “upright” (2 Sam. 22:24), “undefiled” (Ps. 119:1).
14. Times. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to practice soothsaying.” The original meaning of the noun may refer to the hum of insects, the rustle of leaves, as in the related Arabic root. In that case the word would here refer to those who claimed to be able to interpret the various mysterious sounds of nature, and commune with the nonhuman world.
Suffered. Literally, “given,” “granted.” Such practices as those here spoken of were not in harmony with God’s will.
15. A Prophet. “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,” that through them we “might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). But we should not forget that though “these things” were “written for our admonition,” they also “happened unto them for ensamples” (1 Cor. 10:11). Many prophetic statements, historical incidents, and types that clearly pointed forward to the Messiah had also a more immediate meaning for those who heard and witnessed them. Prophetic messages addressed to the people of Israel were borne with respect to the historical circumstances that called them forth and were ordained of God to meet the needs of His people at the time they were given.
Predictions of the OT prophets may be divided into the following four categories:
1.Those that grew out of and were related only to the immediate historical situation or to events soon to occur. Such were Jeremiah’s acted prophecy of the wooden and iron yokes (ch. 28), his symbolic purchase of a field near Anathoth (ch. 32), and his prediction of the death of the false prophet Hananiah (ch. 28:15-17). Similarly, Ezekiel laid symbolic siege to a tile in the market place of Tel-abib (chs. 4 and 5), Amos denounced Israel’s neighbor nations (chs. 1 and 2), and Nahum predicted the fall of Nineveh (chs. 2 and 3).
2.Those that pointed forward manifestly and exclusively to events related to the coming of the Messiah, such as the prophetic statements of Isa. 9:6, 7; 40:3-5; 53; 61:1-3; Dan. 9; Zech. 9:9; 13:1, 6, 7.
3.Those prophecies of the book of Daniel that deal primarily with historical events of the remote future, that is, with the Christian Era and the time of the end, as specifically stated in the prophecies themselves (Dan. 2:44; 7:27; 8:14; 10:14; 11:40; 12:4).
4.Those that have a dual application—first, to a local, historical situation; second, to the Messiah and to His kingdom. It is the prophecies of this fourth category that are most likely to be misunderstood and thus misapplied. Often this is because of a failure to realize that certain prophecies do have a dual aspect.
The Scriptures abound with illustrations of prophecies having dual application. The promise to Abraham of a “seed” (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 22:18) clearly pointed forward to Christ (Matt. 1:1; Gal. 3:16), but met also a real and true fulfillment in the birth of Isaac (Gen. 13:16; 15:4, 5, 13; 17:7, 16, 19-21; 18:10; 21:1, 3). In fact, the earlier fulfillment in Isaac was a type of, and preparatory to, the ultimate fulfillment in Christ. A similar promise made to David was manifestly a prophecy concerning Christ (2 Sam 7:12, 13; Matt. 1:1; Acts 2:30), yet it applied also to the birth of Solomon (1 Kings 8:20). When Moses was about to lay down his duties as leader, and the people wondered who would take his place, he made the inspired prediction, “God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me” (Deut. 18:15). The context makes evident that this promise had an immediate application to the prophetic leadership of Israel in the years following the death of Moses (Deut. 18:18; cf. Ex. 20:19; Deut. 5:25-27; see also Num. 27:18-23; Deut. 34:9, 10; Hosea 12:10, 13), yet Inspiration declares that “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (Deut. 34:10; cf. Num. 12:6-8). Christ alone could fully meet the conditions set forth in Moses’ prediction (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40).
In a similar way the paschal lamb stood first for the literal, historical deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and later for the spiritual deliverance of all God’s people from sin through the Messiah (1 Cor. 5:7). The rock smitten in the wilderness provided literal water for a thirsty people, and accordingly became a type of the Rock, Christ Jesus, who would offer the water of life freely to all men (John 4:10; 7:37; 1 Cor. 10:4). In like manner, the manna that fell from heaven provided bread to satisfy the hunger of Israel, but Jesus declared long afterward that He was “the true bread from heaven” (John 6:31). The high priest Joshua was crowned with literal crowns, in prophetic anticipation of the coronation of Christ as priest and king (Zech. 6:9-13; 9:9).
Referring to the deliverance of Israel from bondage, Hosea spoke of God calling His “son out of Egypt” (Hosea 11:1), yet Matthew sees in the words of Hosea a prophecy of Christ (Matt. 2:15). Jeremiah’s reference to “Rahel weeping for her children” (Jer. 31:10, 11, 15, 16, 20) originally applied to the Babylonian captivity, as the context clearly reveals, but the evangelist finds it prophetic of Herod’s slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:18). Isaiah vividly portrayed the spiritual state of Israel in his day (Isa. 6:9, 10; 29:13), but Christ declared these words prophetic of His generation (Matt 13:14, 15; 15:7-9), saying, “Well did Esaias prophesy of you.” Paul’s exegesis of historical incidents and prophetic statements recorded in the OT conforms to the pattern set by Christ and the evangelists. In fact, he interprets many passages in such a way as might not always be evident from the OT alone (see Acts 13:32, 33; 2 Cor. 8:15; Gal. 3:13, 16; 4:22-31; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 1:5-8; 10:5) The NT writers thus constantly unfold, explain, and interpret the prophetic statements of the OT.
These, and numerous other illustrations that might be given, make evident that Scriptural statements later seen to be prophetic of Christ were often full of literal and more immediate meaning to the people who first heard them and witnessed the events described. Their dim vision may, indeed, have confined the inspired statements to their own day. But later, holy prophets guided by inspiration saw in those very statements further prophetic meaning (Luke 24:25-27, 32; John 16:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12). It was often only when Christ or the Holy Spirit “opened … their understanding” that men of Christian times began to “understand the [OT] scriptures” in their fullness (Luke 24:45). Previously, like their unbelieving countrymen, they overlooked many prophecies that point to the first advent, and misapplied others that refer exclusively to the second (DA 30, 777).
It is apparent, furthermore, that certain OT prophecies pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah and to the establishment of His kingdom apply in part to the first advent, and in part to the second. Thus, in His first sermon at Nazareth, Christ quoted Isa. 61:1-3 as being fulfilled “this day” (Luke 4:16-21), yet significantly omitted reference to “the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:2—for the simple reason that the “day of vengeance” comes only with the second advent. Elijah’s appointed ministry of turning the hearts of Israel to their heavenly Father (1 Kings 18:36-40) is used by later prophets as a type of the work of John the Baptist (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6; John 1:23; Matt. 11:9-17; 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 7:24-27). But the prediction of Elijah’s appearance “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5) is also to be fulfilled again in our time (3T 62). At Pentecost, Peter pointed to Joel 2:28-32 as being fulfilled that day (Acts 2:16-21); but Joel’s words are to find a second fulfillment in our day (EW 142; AA 54, 55). Similarly, certain of the predictions of Matt. 24 pointed forward both to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 and to the end of time (DA 628; GC 22, 25).
The question naturally arises: How can we know when a particular historical incident may rightly be viewed as having a counterpart in a later event, or a prophetic statement as having a dual application? The answer is: When an inspired writer makes such an application of it. To go beyond that which is clearly set forth by Inspiration is to enter the realm of personal opinion. In an age when every wind of doctrine is blowing, it is well to make certain that our understanding of Scripture rests upon a firm and plain “Thus saith the Lord” (see Deut. 29:29; Isa. 50:11; Jer. 2:13; Matt. 7:24-28; 1 Cor. 2:4, 5, 12, 13; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:2-4, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; Rev. 22:18). The safe rule in Biblical interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. In no other way can we be secure against the fanciful, even grotesque, explanations that some have given to OT prophecies.
Though only the local and immediate application may have been understood at the time the prophecy was originally given, yet in the foreknowledge of God provision was also made for the complete and ultimate application to Christ, or to the signs foretelling His second advent, or to the establishment of His kingdom. The fact that the prophets themselves may not have been aware that their inspired utterances had, at times, a dual application in no way impairs the validity of such an application. Rather, it testifies to the more than human wisdom that inspired the utterance. Abraham was not the only one of whom Christ could have said that he saw “my day: … and was glad” (John 8:56), for the prophets themselves often gave diligent study to their own messages, the better to understand the Messianic import of which they themselves may at first have been but dimly aware (1 Peter 1:10-12).
The force of a prophecy regarding Christ is in no way weakened because the prophet’s words apply first to a more immediate historical situation. Often the first and more immediate fulfillment serves not only to confirm and to clarify the second but may even be requisite to it. When a NT writer applies the statement of an OT prophet to NT or subsequent times, to deny the validity of such an application is to deny the inspiration of the NT writer. But when the context of an OT statement makes evident that it applies also to an immediate historical situation, to deny this application would be to violate a primary rule of interpretation; namely, that an examination of context and historical setting is fundamental to a correct understanding of any passage.
Believing both OT and NT writers to be fully inspired, we must, to be consistent, believe that certain prophecies have a dual application. Old Testament promises made originally to literal Israel are to be fulfilled, in principle at least, to spiritual Israel. And as literal Israel looked forward to a “rest” in the earthly Canaan, but failed to enter in, it is our privilege to look forward in hope and faith to an eternal rest in the heavenly Canaan (Heb. 4:8-11; see also Matt. 25:34).
The word translated “prophet” is from the verb “to tell,” “to announce.” The prediction of future events is hardly the major duty of the prophetic office. The prophet’s primary duty is to speak, for God, words of counsel, warning, and reproof. The word “prophet” is from the Gr. prophetes, “to speak in behalf of,” that is, in behalf of someone else. This is the Bible conception of a prophet. He is a spokesman for God.
16. In Horeb. See Ex. 20:19; Deut. 5:25-29. It was in pursuance of that original request that the present promise was made.
17. Well spoken. See ch. 5:25, 28. God appreciated the sentiments expressed by the people, of willingness to hear His counsel, and did not speak to them again as on Mt. Sinai.
18. A Prophet. See on v. 15. Christ was the true prophet “that should come into the world” (John 6:14).
He shall speak. Christ alluded to this prophecy when He said, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10; cf. John 16:13, 14; 5:45, 46).
19. Speak in my name. The true function of a prophet is to reveal the will of God. This aspect of the work of a prophet was most perfectly exemplified by Christ (John 12:47-50; cf. John 8:28, 42, 47; Heb. 12:25, 26).
20. Presume to speak. To pretend to speak the words of God when in reality a man but speaks for himself, God considers a most heinous crime (Jer. 14:14, 15; 23:16, 21-27, 30-33; Jer. 28:15-17; Eze. 12:24; 13:1-3).
21. How shall we know? The proof of a prophet’s credentials lies, in part, in the fulfillment of his predictions. Note how this was found true of Samuel (1 Sam. 3:18-21). The Jews had a tendency to rely on signs and wonders (John 2:18); 1 Cor. 1:22), and against this the Lord warned them (Deut. 13:1, 2).
22. Follow not. This would be conclusive evidence that the “prophet” was not sent by God (see Jer. 28:9).
Dwellest. The matters to be discussed would apply particularly to the situation in Palestine itself, once Israel had settled within the land of God’s choice. What follows applies to a settled order of social life (see ch. 6:10).
Separate three cities. God had previously so commanded Moses (Num. 35:14, 15). The three on the west side of Jordan were appointed by Joshua after the conquest (Joshua 20). The three on the east of Jordan had already been designated by Moses, namely, Bezer, Ramoth Gilead, and Golan (Deut. 4:41-43).
In the midst. Not in the precise geographical center, but distributed so as to make them accessible to all who needed them. The cities of refuge point fearful hearts to security in Jesus Christ.
3. A way. Literally, “the way,” that is, “the road.” Access to the cities of refuge was to be made easy. The road was to be clearly marked and kept in good repair (PP 515), for men’s lives were at stake. Thus it should be with the “way” to our refuge in Jesus Christ—so plain that none need err therein (see Isa. 35:8).
The coasts. That is, “the area” (RSV). Each city of refuge would then serve as the convenient center for the district in which it was situated, and no place would be unduly remote from a city of refuge. Equal arrangements were to be made for all parts of the country.
Flee thither. The devout Christian will certainly think of the sinner’s privilege of fleeing to Christ. As the gates of the cities of refuge were never to be closed to one who sought entrance, so Christ never refuses one who comes to Him contrite and repentant (Ps. 51:17; Isa. 57:15).
4. Ignorantly. That is, “unintentionally,” literally, “without knowledge” (Deut. 4:42; Joshua 20:3, 5).
Hated not. The man responsible had acted unintentionally (see Num. 35:23). To require the life of such an unintentional slayer would be to shed innocent blood.
5. The wood. Probably hillside thickets. According to Egyptian records Canaan was heavily wooded during patriarchal times. This is a case of unpremeditated homicide (see Num. 35:22). The man was engaged in a lawful pursuit, and the death of his companion was altogether accidental.
Fetcheth a stroke. “Swings the axe” (RSV).
The helve. Some think this means that the ax flew off from the tree, since the word for tree is the same as the one here translated “helve.” But it is perhaps better to understand it as given in the KJV, that the axhead flew off the handle as the man was in the process of cutting down a tree.
Live. Compare Joshua 20:1-4 for additional details. This is a vivid symbolic word picture of the security the sinner may find in Christ Jesus. The bloodstained person is cleansed in Jesus (1 John 1:7). There is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1); for, “being justified by faith,” they have “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1).
6. The avenger. From the same word translated “kinsman” (see on Ruth 2:20), and “redeemer” (Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; 78:35; Isa. 41:14; 43:14; 54:5).
The way is long. The same concern over the length and inconvenience of the road had been shown by God in relation to duties at the central altar (chs. 12:21; 14:24).
7. Wherefore. It was to prevent an unfortunate situation like that mentioned in the previous verses that the three cities were established in different parts of the country.
8. Enlarge. See Gen. 15:18; Ex. 23:31; Deut. 1:7.
9. If thou shalt keep. The fulfillment of the promises of enlargement was dependent on obedience (ch. 11:22-24). Compare the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 15:18).
Three cities more. That would be nine in all, as three on each side of the Jordan had already been stipulated (v. 2; ch. 4:41-43). There is, however, no record of theadditional three ever having been designated in the afterhistory of the nation.
10. Innocent. Compare Deut. 21:8; Jer. 7:6. The word thus translated is from a verb root meaning “to be clean,” “to be free.” Inherent in it is the idea of being free from obligations resulting from guilt.
Blood be upon thee. Compare 2 Sam. 16:8; Hosea 12:14. The innocent blood upon them would be that of the manslayer who had killed a man accidentally, and then could not find a place of refuge before he himself was slain.
11. Hate his neighbour. For details see Num. 35:16-24. Hatred in the heart of man causes him to “lie in wait,” then “rise up” at the opportune moment, and “smite … mortally” his neighbor whom he detests (see Ex. 21:14).
12. The elders. Those properly appointed and authorized were to act in this important matter. Compare ch. 21:2, 4, 6, 19, for examples of elders legally appointed. For elders of these cities see Joshua 20:1-6.
Deliver him. If found guilty of premeditated murder he was to be handed over to the avenger of blood; otherwise, he was to receive protection (Num. 35:12, 24, 25).
Put away. Literally, “consume” or “burn away,” indicating complete removal.
14. Not remove. Literally, “move back,” that is, so as to enlarge one’s own piece of property, and leave one’s neighbor correspondingly less. From ancient times landmarks were considered inviolate. A curse was pronounced on the one who surreptitiously moved them (Deut. 27:17; see also Job 24:2; Prov. 22:28; 23:10; Hosea 5:10).
They of old time. Or, “the former ones.” Not referring to generations of past time reaching into antiquity, but to those who originally divided the land and marked out the boundaries.
15. One witness. A man could not be condemned on the testimony of one witness, in either a civil or a criminal charge (cf. Deut. 17:6; Num. 35:30).
16. False witness. A false witness was to be punished (v. 19).
17. Before the Lord. A difficult case could be brought to a higher court at the door of the sanctuary of the Lord, where the parties would be in the presence of Jehovah (ch. 17:8-12).
18. False witness. Perjury is a most heinous crime, yet many do not hesitate to lie even under oath. One who thus publicly violates truth sins against himself, his enemy, and God.
19. As he had thought. A false witness would have to suffer the penalty he thought to inflict upon the accused (see Deut. 19:21; cf. Ex. 23:1; Ps. 35:11). This is the law of just retribution.
20. Commit no more. This law was bound to restrain selfishness and tended to bring in a higher sense of public duty and morality (see chs. 13:11; 17:13).
21. Not pity. This advice is spoken to the judges, lest they be tempted to be more lenient than strict justice required.
Life shall go. For further details, see Ex. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19, 20. A conspiracy to give false testimony and thereby bring an innocent man into jeopardy is unforgivable, for it represents potential murder in the heart of the false witness (see Matt. 5:22). The pit that he dug for his innocent neighbor was to be his own grave.
1. Horses, and chariots. The Canaanites had large numbers of chariots (Joshua 11:4; Judges 4:3). The army of Israel was composed of infantrymen; they never lost their fear of armed chariots (Joshua 17:16; Judges 1:19; 1 Sam. 13:5, 6). Not until David’s time did they have chariots of their own (2 Sam. 8:4).
Be not afraid. Jehovah had brought them out of Egypt; He would be with them in the vicissitudes of battle that lay ahead (Ps. 20:6-8).
God is with thee. For the same promise under other circumstances see chs. 1:30, 42; 7:21. Compare the message of Isaiah to Ahaz in his conflict with Rezin and Pekah (Isa. 7:4-14; 8:8, 10).
2. The priest shall approach. See Num. 31:6; 2 Chron. 13:12. For the ark being taken to the field of battle, see 1 Sam. 4:4, 5 (cf. 2 Sam. 11:11), and a sacrifice being offered to God for victory in battle, see 1 Sam. 7:9; cf. 1 Sam. 13:9-13.
3. Faint. Better, “be soft,” “be tender,” “be weak.” For other uses of the word translated “faint” see 2 Kings 22:19; Ps. 55:21; Isa. 1:6.
4. The Lord your God. Compare the confidence of David (1 Sam. 17:45; Ps. 20:7). Sacrifices were often offered to God at the opening of a campaign in order to invoke His presence. In the last great struggle preliminary to the second coming of Christ, Jehovah is represented as being present in person to do battle (see Isa. 13:6-14; Joel 3:9-21; Rev. 16:14-16; 19:11-16).
5. Officers. The same word here translated “officers” is found in Ex. 5:6, 10, 14, 15, 19; Num. 11:16; Deut. 1:15; 16:18; Joshua 1:10; etc., and as “overseer” in Prov. 6:7. These men were civil magistrates, for the army of Israel was not a body of professional soldiers.
Dedicated. The verb thus translated is used of the dedication of an altar (Num. 7:10) and of the sanctuary (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron. 7:5), but here of a private house.
Not yet eaten. The owner could not lawfully eat the fruit of the vineyard for the first three years after planting (Lev. 19:23; etc.). In the fourth year he was to carry the fruit to Jerusalem and eat it there as a thank offering (Lev. 19:24). But from the fifth year, inclusive, the fruit was his (Lev. 19:25).
Betrothed a wife. This exemption was an act of consideration so that the man might not die without having children to perpetuate his name and interests. This exemption lasted one year (ch. 24:5). The three exemptions noted in vs. 5-7 could not fail to have a beneficial effect on the economy of the nation. They were an important alleviation of the insecurity and utterly disturbing effects of war upon the entire life of a people.
8. Fearful and fainthearted. It was felt necessary to protect the army from the infectious spirit of cowardice. It is equally necessary to maintain a high level of courage in the Christian warfare. Victories are gained by discipline, courage, devotion to duty, and a spirit of self-sacrifice (Luke 14:26, 27; Gal. 6:9).
9. Captains. Referring to officers in command of companies of thousands, hundreds, or fifties (see Num. 31:14, 48; 1 Sam. 8:12; 22:7; 2 Sam. 18:1). The singular number, captain of a “host,” is used to designate the commander in chief of the entire army (Gen. 21:22; 2 Sam. 2:8; 1 Kings 16:16).
10. Proclaim peace. Meaning terms of surrender. See offers of negotiation made by Ben-hadad of Syria to Ahab, king of Israel (1 Kings 20:1-6), and by the representative of the king of Assyria to Hezekiah, king of Judah (2 Kings 18:17-37).
11. Tributaries. The word thus translated is a collective noun indicating a body of forced laborers (see RSV). King Solomon placed such a levy upon the people, some 30,000 in all (1 Kings 5:13), to be sent to Lebanon (1 Kings 5:14; cf. 1 Kings 9:15, 20, 21; 12:18; 2 Chron. 10:18). In Isa. 31:8 the same word is translated “discomfited.”
12. No peace. A rejection of the offer of peace was regarded as a declaration of war, and hostilities began.
13. Smite every male. The rejection of the offer of peace was the expression of a determination to continue the worship of idols, with all its attendant immoralities. The moral rottenness and total depravity of the inhabitants of idolatrous cities made their destruction inevitable if they refused to accept God and turn their backs upon idolatry.
14. Spoil. Precious metals, cloth, stocks of food, and all manner of household goods (see ch. 2:35).
16. Cities. Referring specifically to the cities of Canaan. No peace offer was to be made to them; God had previously given strict injunctions as to sparing any of them (Ex. 23:31-33; 34:11-16). Every precaution was taken to protect Israel from the degrading forms of idolatry practiced by the Canaanites. On the abominations of these people, see Lev. 18:24-28; 20:23.
17. Utterly destroy. Literally, “dedicate,” that is, to destruction.
Hittites. Compare Deut. 7:1 and Joshua 24:11, where seven nations are enumerated, not six. Here, the Girgashites are omitted.
Commanded thee. See ch. 7:2; cf. the instructions recorded in Ex. 23:31-33.
18. Abominations. This points to the supreme reason for the severe measures taken. Great wickedness coupled with the rejection of mercy demanded judgment (see chs. 7:26; 12:31). When “the iniquity of the Amorites” was full, judgment came (see Gen. 15:16; 1 Kings 21:26).
19. The trees. The fruit trees would give refreshment and sustenance. They could not be grown in a day.
The tree of the field. The word “life” is not in the Hebrew text. Compare 1 Sam. 16:20, which reads literally, an “ass of bread,” meaning an ass loaded with bread. Similarly, fruit trees are spoken of as being for the support of men. The RSV reads, “Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you?”
20. For meat. Literally, “for food.”
Bulwarks. Literally, “siege-works” (RSV). The reference is to various of ramparts, trenches, etc., built to aid in the subjugation of a city. The same word is translated “fenced” (2 Chron. 8:5); “for defence” (2 Chron. 11:5); “fortress” (Jer. 10:17); “fortified” (Micah 7:12); “the tower” (Hab. 2:1; cf. 2 Chron. 26:15; 2 Sam. 20:15).
Be subdued. Literally, “come down” (see Deut. 28:52; Isa. 32:19).
1. Found slain. For a similar expression in respect to other circumstances, see chs. 17:2; 24:7. God has always emphasized the sacredness of human life and of personal rights (see on Gen. 9:5, 6).
2. Elders. Presumably the elders and judges of the villages in the vicinity of the place where the body was found chs. 16:18; 19:12).
3. Next unto. The elders of the city nearest to the body would be held responsible for the performance of the necessary last rites. It may have been presumed that the slayer was a person from the immediate vicinity.
Heifer. The age is not given, though Jewish commentators give two years as the age required. In other circumstances a heifer of three years is specified (Gen. 15:9).
Wrought with. That is, not been worked as a draft animal (see Num. 19:2).
4. Rough valley. Literally, “a valley of never-failing water.” The emphasis in the verse here is on the constant flowing water, and not the size or the condition of the surface.
Eared. Better, “plowed,” referring to an uncultivated spot (see on Gen. 45:6).
Strike off. Literally, “break.” Commentators have seen in the heifer a substitute for the murderer. There is a certain ritualistic element, in that the animal is young and has not been used in common labor.
5. Priests. See chs. 17:9; 18:1. The priests of the nearest Levitical city would be present to see that the requirements were carried out in harmony with what had been commanded, for “by their word,” literally, “upon their mouth,” all such cases were to be settled. The authority of the Levites was far reaching. They had a voice in every important decision. In this case their presence gave validity to the placing of the burden of the murder on the district in which the body was found.
6. Wash their hands. Taking water from the brook of the valley, they thus protested their innocence and that of the city they represented. Compare the words of the psalmist (Ps. 26:6; 73:13), and the action of Pilate at the trial of Christ (Matt. 27:24).
Over the heifer. If the heifer represented the unknown slayer, as seems to have been the case, then this act was symbolic of the placing of the guilt upon him.
7. Shall answer. In a ceremonial sense (ch. 27:14). They made a solemn declaration, in keeping with the authority of their holy office.
8. Be merciful. The word thus translated probably means “to cover.” The RSV has “forgive.” The same root in Arabic means “to cover,” “to hide.” The usual translation is “make an atonement” (Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 18; etc.). The noun from the same root is translated “mercy seat” (Ex. 25:17-22). The idea is that a covering, for protection.
Redeemed. Literally, “purchased,” “paid the price for.” It is sometimes translated “deliver” (Job 33:28; Ps. 55:18; 69:18; 78:42; 119:134), and “rescue” (1 Sam. 14:45).
Lay not.Literally, “do not permit to remain.” It may possibly be implied that the people of the vicinity were held guilty, in part, perhaps because they had not made the roads leading to their city as safe as they should have been.
So shalt thou put away. The Hebrew is emphatic: “and thou, shalt burn out,” meaning to “utterly root out,” or “consume.”
10. Taken them captive. Inasmuch as the Canaanites were to be wiped out, it is possible that the reference here is a general one referring to future conflicts with the surrounding nations (see on ch. 20:13, 14, 16).
11. A beautiful woman. Nothing is said as to whether she was married, but if all the males were slain ( ch. 20:13), she would be either unmarried or a widow.
12. To thine house. Literally, “to the midst of thy household,” certainly a more honorable procedure than to keep her secretly elsewhere.
Shave her head. Probably in mourning; or for purification, as some commentators think. Some widows in the East are said to perform a similar type of ritual at the end of a year of mourning for their deceased husbands.
13. In thine house. She was to be withdrawn from public gaze, and remain in retirement for one month (see Gen. 38:11).
A full month. Compare with the period of mourning for Aaron and Moses (Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8). This would give her time to adjust herself to her new environment.
Wife. It is apparent that God intended to discourage illicit relations, and to encourage lawful marriage. Even a captive woman was not to be made the plaything of a man’s passions, but if willing to live in harmony with God’s people, she was to be given an honorable status.
14. Whither she will. Literally, “according to her soul,” that is, wherever she desired. She was to be free to determine her own future, as mistress of her own person.
Not sell her. Compare the status of the married Hebrew slave whom the husband wished to divorce (Ex. 21:8).
Not make merchandise. Literally, “not deal tyrannically,” that is, to force her to become a slave.
15. The hated. The word “hated” in such cases implies sexual aversion toward (2 Sam. 13:15). This was the case with Jacob and Leah (see Gen. 29:16, 30, 31). It is not unlikely that in such case the husband’s affection for the children of the favored wife would be very much more marked.
16. Sons to inherit. Note that only sons are spoken of, not daughters, for the latter were not entitled to a double portion. Jewish tradition is that only sons born before the death of the father were so privileged. A posthumous son was not entitled to a double portion.
He may not make. This is equivalent to the modern execution of a will (see Gen. 24:36; 25:5).
17. Acknowledge. Despite his personal feelings and predilections.
Double portion. Literally, “the mouth of two,” that is, two portions. If a man had five sons the inheritance would be divided into six portions, the eldest son receiving two (see Gen. 48:22; 2 Kings 2:9).
The beginning. That is, the first fruits of his strength (see Gen. 49:1-3; also (Ps. 78:51; 105:36).
18. Stubborn and rebellious. “Stubborn” is from a verb meaning “to be rebellious,” “resentful,” “sullen.” Jewish commentators generally refer this to sons who manifested sullen resentment toward God’s requirements and refused to carry them out. “Rebellious” the Jews applied to one who did the things he was forbidden to do, particularly in relation to parents (see Ps. 78:8; Jer. 5:23).
Or … of his mother. Both parents were to be equally honored; both were to be dutifully obeyed.
Chastened. That is, “disciplined,” “corrected,” “admonished,” often referring to corporal punishment (see Deut. 8:5; Prov. 19:18; 29:17).
19. Lay hold. Literally, “to hold with firmness,” as a sword (Eze. 30:21).
Elders. See on chs. 16:18; 19:12.
The gate. See on Gen. 19:1.
Glutton. See the same expression in Prov. 23:20-22. “Glutton” is better translated, “wastrel,” “riotous eater.” This word implies the idea of being unreasonably lavish, of squandering one’s health and wealth.
21. Men of his city. The young man was incorrigible, yet the carrying out of so severe a penalty was not left to the father’s judgment; it was the solemn responsibility of the men of the city (see chs. 13:10; 17:5; 22:24). To discipline with severity was within the province of the parent (Prov. 19:18), but not the carrying out of the death penalty. For other crimes that merited the death penalty, see Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:2, 27; cf. Joshua 7:25.
22. Hang him. Hanging is not infrequently recorded in the Bible (Gen. 40:22; 2 Sam. 21:12; Esther 7:10; 9:14). Jewish commentators maintain that the accused was put to death, and then the dead body hanged on a tree.
23. Not remain all night. See Joshua 8:29; 10:27.
Accursed. The root translated “accursed” means also to be “despicable,” “contemptible,” “dishonored.” Compare the argument of the apostle Paul in Gal. 3:10-14.
Land be not defiled. The land was conceived of as being defiled by the exposure of the bodies of criminals who had suffered the extreme penalty. The criminal who was hanged was thought of as being under God’s ban, and his body was not to remain in the public gaze. Jesus was condemned by His own people as one of the worst of criminals, and as under Jehovah’s curse (Matt. 27:43; cf. Isa. 53:4).
1. Thy brother’s ox. Responsibility for the welfare of a friend or neighbor was strictly enjoined, and extended even to one’s enemies (Ex. 23:4). The KJV translation, “go astray,” is inadequate to the thought of the Hebrew word, which means “being driven away.” The same word is also rendered “forcing” (Deut. 20:19), “driven out” (Deut. 30:4), “drawn away” (Deut. 30:17), “driven quite” (Job 6:13). If the cattle in this instance had merely been going astray, to bring them back would have been nothing more than a matter of time and effort. But the text suggests also that in some instances they were being driven off by thieves. In such cases there was an element of personal risk, possibly involving in some instances the loss of life.
Hide thyself. Compare Isa. 58:7.
Bring them again. It was not enough to inform the owner, but effort was to be put forth to restore his property. Compare the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35).
2. Bring it. This might involve the care of wounded animals, and certainly their shelter and feeding, until the one holding the cattle would be able to locate the rightful owner.
3. All lost thing. The same law as in v. 1, 2 was applicable to anything a man might find. The basic principle of love for one’s neighbor included an interest in whatever affected him. Compare the teaching of Jesus on this point (Matt. 5:42-48).
4. Hide thyself. That is, slip away before he should be observed in the vicinity of the animals in distress (see Luke 10:31, 32).
Surely help. Compare Ex. 23:4, 5.
5. Not wear. This probably refers to the heathen custom—quite common in some lands today—of a simulated change of sex for immoral purposes, men wearing women’s clothes, aping their manners, and offering their bodies for immoral purposes. The word here translated “that which pertaineth” is used of many articles other than clothing, such as “jewels” (Gen. 24:53), “weapons” (Gen. 27:3), “stuff” (Gen. 31:37), “armour” (1 Sam. 14:1, 6), “bag” (1 Sam. 17:40), “furniture” (Nahum 2:9). God made man male and female, and the distinction thus ordained is to be honored and obeyed. The desire to minimize this distinction grows from low ideals and contributes to immorality.
6. The dam with the young. Or, “the mother with the young.” Presumably, the reference here is to any clean bird that may be eaten. God is considerate of the feeling and lives of His lesser creatures (Matt. 10:29; Luke 12:6), and is pleased and honored when we are also (see on Lev. 22:27). Taking the lives of any of God’s creatures in sport, or annoying them, or disturbing them unnecessarily, is unworthy of a Christian and is displeasing to God.
7. Let the dam go. This would protect the species, ensuring the preservation of bird life. Modern game laws generally reflect the principle here set forth.
8. A battlement. The flat roof of a house was to have a low parapet to protect an unwary person from falling to the street below. The roof was often used as a place for the drying of various grains and fruits, for children, and for relaxation in the cool of the evening (see Joshua 2:6; 2 Sam. 11:2; 18:24; Neh. 8:16; Matt. 10:27; Acts 10:9).
9. Divers seeds. A similar injunction had been given with respect to their fields (Lev. 19:19). This law was probably given to ensure the preservation of seed quality. Inferior varieties could easily result from crossbreeding, and against these God sought to protect His people. Scientific, selective crossbreeding was unknown.
Be defiled. Literally, “be holy,” “be sacred,” “be hallowed,” “be consecrated” (Ex. 29:21, 37; 1 Sam. 21:5; 2 Chron. 26:18; 31:6; Ezra 3:5). This term was applied to the priests and Levites, the sacrifices, the altar, to God’s person, the church, etc. Of the 589 times this word and its derivative noun form appear in the OT, this is the only instance where it is translated “be defiled.” The translators apparently misunderstood the meaning. The meaning here is that the product of the vineyard would become “holy,” that is, “forfeited to the sanctuary” (RSV). It was not to be used by the owner, and might neither be sold nor given away. He was not to benefit from it in any way.
10. An ox and an ass. The ox was a “clean” animal, and the ass “unclean.” However, this charge was probably a humane one, inasmuch as in size and strength the animals are unequal. In the East today camels and asses are sometimes yoked together.
11. Woollen and linen. See on Lev. 19:19; see also Eze. 44:17, 19; Rev. 19:8.
12. Fringes. More exactly, “tassels.” The Hebrew word thus translated is used but once more in the OT (1 Kings 7:17, “wreaths”). It is from the verb “to become great,” “to twist,” and is not the same word as that rendered “fringes” in Num. 15:37-41.
The four quarters. Or, “the four corners” (RSV; cf. Num. 15:38, “borders,” the same word in Hebrew). The “vesture,” from the verb “to cover,” was probably a rectangular outer garment resembling a cloak, still worn by the peasants of Palestine. The poor used it for a cover at night. Anciently, the Jews wore “tassels” openly on their outer garment. As this readily identified them in times of persecution, they transferred the tassels to the inner garment. Later they adopted the custom of wearing the tassels, or twisted cords, only on the small mantle worn at prayers. The dress of God’s people was to be distinctive. They were not to follow the fashions of the people among whom they lived.
13. Hate her. That is, find that he dislikes her. Apparently he had married the woman, not with any real love for her, but primarily from his physical attraction to her. Physical attraction is a most precarious basis upon which to establish a home. Unity of spirit is the only sure and abiding bond between husband and wife.
14. Occasions of speech. Literally, “lay wanton charges.” It is only a mean and selfish man who will falsely accuse his wife and ruin her reputation simply to secure the “legal” right to cast her off. Such a man should be publicly chastised (v. 18). Compare Num. 14:36, 37; Deut. 19:18, 19 on God’s attitude toward a lying report.
Not a maid. The word translated “maid” is the true term for a virgin in the absolute sense. The verse reads literally, “and not did I find in respect to her virginity.” For the same noun see vs. 15, 17, 20 (see also Lev. 21:13; etc.).
15. Tokens. From ancient times the evidence of a young woman’s virginity was treasured as proof of her unsullied youth. Immediately upon the consummation of the marriage this physical evidence (see on v. 17) was shown to the immediate relatives, who could then be called upon as material witnesses of her virginity.
In the gate. See on Gen. 19:1.
16. The damsel’s father. The mother apparently did not take an active part in the public defense, but her presence there is proof of her close interest in the case.
17. The cloth. The word translated “cloth” is the common one for “wrapper” or “mantle,” a large square cloth, usually of linen, worn as an outer garment by both men and women (used in 5; cf. Gen. 35:2; Ex. 22:26; 2 Sam. 12:20; Ruth 3:3), and used as a covering in sleep (Ex. 22:27).
18. The elders. That is, formal inquiry having been made with the presentation of the evidences, deliberation by the elders brought a decision.
Chastise. The condemned received 40 stripes by men appointed to administer the punishment (ch. 25:3). Josephus (Antiquities iv. 8. 23) says the man received 39 stripes.
19. Amerce him. “Fine him” (RSV). The fine imposed was double that which the groom usually contracted to give the bride. The word translated “amerce” also means “punish,” that is, punishment by the payment of a fine (Ex. 21:22).
Not put her away. Such an arrangement could hardly make for happy married life in the modern sense. The husband wanted to be rid of his wife, but was forced to retain her against his will. But the procedure did justify the wife and re-establish her character in the eyes of the public.
21. The door. She had disgraced her father’s house, therefore was to be punished at his door.
Folly in Israel. The word translated “folly” is difficult to express in English. It is also rendered “vile” (Judges 19:24), and “villany” (Isa. 32:6; Jer. 29:23). It includes the ideas of disgrace, wantonness, utter senselessness.
22. Both of them die. The manner of death is not stated. Jewish tradition is that all such were strangled, but they may have been stoned, as in v. 24 (see Eze. 16:38, 40; 23:45, 47). See also the NT incident (John 8:5, 7), of a woman presumably betrothed.
23. Betrothed. This case is treated as if it were literally adultery, inasmuch as the girl was pledged to her “husband” and regarded as a married woman. Compare the case of Joseph and Mary, whose marriage ceremony had not yet taken place, but only their betrothal, yet she was spoken of as his “wife” (Matt. 1:20, 24). The Western “engagement” falls short of the solemnity and binding character of the Eastern betrothal (see 2 Sam. 3:14).
25. In the field. It was presumed that the girl was forced to submit; she was given the benefit of the doubt. There were no people near to whom she could appeal for help (v. 27), and her innocency was assumed if investigation proved nothing to the contrary (see 2 Sam. 13:11).
27. Found her. Perhaps tending the flock, or gathering herbs, or drawing water. She was presumably upon legitimate business, and overpowered.
28. Not betrothed. In this case the girl was not regarded as a wife, for there had been no betrothal ceremony, with its exchange of solemn promises and the payment of a sum of money.
They be found. Witnesses may have come upon them; or they may have confessed, in order to force the issue—owing to the opposition of their parents to their marriage.
30. His father’s wife. Compare Lev. 18:8; 20:11; see Eze. 22:10.
His father’s skirt. The passage reads, literally, “and not shall he remove the fold of the garment of his father.” This refers to the Oriental custom in which a newly married man spreads a fold of his long, skirtlike outer robe over his wife, to signify that she is his property, and that he alone has power over her person (Ruth 3:9-14; 4:10; Eze 16:8).
1. He that is wounded. The intentional mutilation of the male organs in devotion to a god by some “holy men” survived into modern times. This custom prevailed among various ancient peoples as a part of their religion (see Lev. 21:20).
Not enter. To emphasize God’s abhorrence of the mutilation of the human body. The same prohibition, applied to certain foreigners, evidently meant exclusion from the sanctuary, where the congregation worshiped (Neh. 13:1, 7; Lam. 1:10), but not exclusion from salvation, or God’s spiritual house (see Isa. 56:3, 5). Later, in God’s spiritual community of Christian believers, a eunuch was highly honored by a special messenger sent from God (Acts 8:27-40). Eunuchs were employed in the service of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Kings 9:32; Jer. 29:2).
2. A bastard. The root of the word thus translated is uncertain. Rabbinical tradition applies this term not to anyone born out of wedlock, but limits it to one born of incest, or else takes it to mean a non-Israelite, or a stranger of unknown ancestry. Purity of family and spiritual life has always been a matter of supreme moment to God. On exclusion from the congregation, see on vs. 1, 3.
3. Ammonite or Moabite. Tobiah, an Ammonite, was excluded from the Temple on the strength of this text (see Neh. 2:10; 13:1-8).
4. Met you not. The unfriendly attitude of Ammon and Moab added much to the difficulties of the children of Israel. Both were akin to Israel, but did not even show them the common courtesies due to strangers, much less those due to kinsmen (Gen. 14:18; 18:2; 19:1, 2). God had already ordered the Israelites not to distress the Ammonites (Deut. 2:19). The seeming contradiction between the statement here made, that the Moabites did not meet Israel with provisions, and that of ch. 2:29 that they did do so, is more apparent than real. The words of ch. 23:4 imply only that the Moabites did not willingly offer them food in a friendly spirit—not that they did not sell food to the Israelites in return for money.
Hired against thee Balaam. This was the work of the Moabites assisted by the Midianites (Num. 22:4-7). Christ taught that the merciless person will not inherit the kingdom (Matt. 25:41-46). Enmity manifested toward the church is regarded as hostility toward Christ Himself (Acts 9:4, 5).
5. God would not hearken. The prophet was eager to curse Israel, but Jehovah put words into his mouth that he could not refrain from uttering (see Num. 22). It was impossible for a wicked prophet to thrust aside God’s blessings and inflict curses upon His people. The curses of Balaam were turned into blessings (Num. 23, 24). Other examples of God’s protecting care are recorded of Joseph (Gen. 39:1-3; 41:39-45), Mordecai and the Jewish people (Esther 6 to 10), the young man Daniel and his three companions (Dan. 3:16-30; 6:1, 2), and many others.
6. Seek their peace. This refers to fraternizing with their heathen neighbors (see Ezra 9:12). Israel was to remain entirely separate from these people, so far as common association for social purposes was concerned. The experience at Baal-peor had demonstrated the tragic results of such association (see Num. 25:1-9). This warning was particularly appropriate in view of the fact that the Moabites were their close neighbors, and there would no doubt be many occasions for free and intimate association.
7. An Edomite. There was a permanent state of hostility between the neighboring kingdoms of Israel and Edom (Num. 20:18-21; see on 2 Sam. 8:13).
An Egyptian. It was not to be forgotten that Israel had found refuge in Egypt for many years, and had prospered in the land despite enforced hardships.
8. Third generation. For 200 years Israel had found a home in Egypt. They had enjoyed protection and sustenance in a time of terrible famine. Later came persecution. Yet God would not have His people see only the evil side of a nation’s character, and dwell only on it. In the third generation the descendants of an Edomite or an Egyptian were allowed all the privileges of God’s people, upon being circumcised. There was probably considerable intercourse between the two countries, in trade and culture.
9. From every wicked thing. Strictness in respect to physical cleanliness and purity of life is here admonished. As an army on the march, a large body of men cut off from normal social relations has many temptations to lower standards of conduct. The condition of Israel before God was much more important than her military preparations for meeting the enemy. God could not consistently lead a faithless, unclean people to victory.
10. Uncleanness. See Lev. 15:16. As a matter of fact, God required that Israel’s military forces be free from moral pollution, ceremonial pollution, and natural physical pollution. Jehovah was in the midst of the camp to lead them to victory. He would not tolerate the lowered standards that are all too frequently an accompaniment of military life.
11. Evening. He would not regain his cleanness until the close of the day.
12. Whither thou shalt go. Decency and respect for the conventions of life were to be observed. Sanitary rules were to be enforced, not only in deference to fineness of feeling but to protect the health of the army.
13. A paddle. A sharp instrument of various uses. It was used as a pin, or tent peg (Ex. 27:19; Judges 4:21, 22), a tool used in weaving (Judges 16:13, 14); a stake, figuratively used of protection under God’s hand (Isa. 33:20). The RSV reads, “a stick with your weapons.”
14. God walketh. So making the camp holy ground. The ark was in the camp as a token of Jehovah’s presence (see Num. 10:33-36). The form of the verb “to walk” here used suggests walking up and down in the camp (see Gen. 3:8; 13:17; 2 Sam. 7:6, 7). Compare the statement of the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 6:16 to 7:1, who may have had this verse in mind at the time he wrote.
No unclean thing. Literally, “any nakedness of anything,” commonly meaning indecent exposure. The same word occurs in Gen. 9:22, 23; Ex. 28:42; Lev. 18:6, 7; etc.
Turn away. Compare Jer. 32:40. Nothing shameful, unclean, indecent, should be allowed to go unchecked, or God would not remain in the camp—meaning that He would allow them to be defeated by their enemies. An unclean church cannot be victorious in the controversy between Christ and Satan, for Heaven’s blessing awaits only those who trust and obey Him without reserve.
16. Dwell with thee. In the city that appealed to him (chs. 15:7; 16:5; 17:2; 18:6).
Not oppress him. The spirit of the law of Moses was opposed to slavery. Rather, a spirit of kindness was enjoined (Lev. 19:33, 34).
17. No whore. The language of this verse is general, yet the chief reference seems to be to religious prostitution. The words translated “whore” and “sodomite” both come from the same Hebrew root, which means “sanctified” or “holy,” as applied to the sanctuary (Ex. 26:33, 34), to the holy garments (Ex. 28:2, 4), to the altar (Ex. 29:37), etc. The RSV reads, “cult prostitute.” Temple prostitution has ever been a common feature of idolatry. Such a practice has survived into modern times in some portions of the East. The woman was known as a female servant of the god. Prostitution of the body is an abomination to God, in any case, but to consecrate prostitution as a part of religion is a most abhorrent degradation. See references to prostitution in connection with religion, in 1 Kings 14:23, 24; 15:12; 2 Kings 23:7; Jer. 3:2.
18. The hire. The word for “hire” is commonly used of the payment to a woman either for common prostitution or for that connected with temple worship (Hosea 9:1; Micah 1:7).
The price of a dog. The word “price” is not from the same root as “hire.” It is the “price” or “payment” that the “dog” receives. The word “dog” is here used to designate the person mentioned in v. 17 as a “sodomite.” It is a contemptuous term in Hebrew (1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Sam. 16:9; Isa. 56:10). Compare the apostle John’s description of those who may not enter the eternal kingdom (Rev. 22:15). In Eastern countries dogs roam about half wild, hungry, and unclean (1 Kings 14:11). They are a symbol of uncleanness and of outcasts.
19. Usury. See on Ex. 22:25. This injunction does not refer to ordinary business, trade, or commerce; but was part of the poor law of the land of Israel, and designed only for the benefit of those in actual distress (see on Ex. 22:25; see also Lev. 25:35, 36; cf. Neh. 5:2-5, 10-12).
20. A stranger. A non-Jew, whether a resident in Israel or not. A foreigner who had become a proselyte was to be treated as a brother (Lev. 19:33, 34).
21. Vow a vow. That is, a solemn vow to Jehovah, an obligation not to be treated lightly. For examples see Gen. 28:20; Num. 21:2; Judges 11:30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:7; cf. Num. 30:2-16. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word is “to dedicate.”
Slack. From the usual Hebrew word meaning “to delay,” “to tarry,” “to remain behind.” Nothing is said here in respect to the place where payment was to be made; that information is given in ch. 12:5, 6, 11, 18, 26. For the blessedness of paying one’s vows see Ps. 22:25; 50:14; 56:12, 13; 61:8; 65:1; 66:13.
22. Forbear. It is not obligatory to make vows to Jehovah. What is obligatory is the carrying out of a vow after it has been made. Such a violation is sin in the sight of God. To make a vow to God is to assume a sacred obligation. To withdraw from that obligation is to injure one’s spiritual life (see Lev. 27; Num. 30).
23. Out of thy lips. There was no compulsion. The vow was freely made, and must be carried out accordingly.
24. Eat grapes. The primary reference here is to workmen in a vineyard and to travelers passing by and in need of refreshment. It is common practice in the East today for a man to take a stick of sugar cane from a field in passing from one village to another (see Matt. 12:1-9).
At thine own pleasure. Literally, “according to thy soul.” The word usually translated “soul,” here means “appetite” (see Ps. 107:9; Prov. 13:25; Isa. 58:11).
In thy vessel. Those passing by might eat to satisfy present hunger. But to carry any away would be to abuse a privilege designed as a blessing to the traveler.
25. Move a sickle. Compare Mark 2:23. Legitimate hunger should be satisfied; to take more would be theft. This provision was in harmony with the second “great commandment” of love to one’s neighbor, and was an acknowledgment that the harvest was from God.
The owner would not miss the small quantity of grain or fruit thus taken from his field or orchard, yet it would suffice the immediate hunger of the one passing by. The owner could not properly feel that he had been wronged, nor could the stranger, if poor, come to feel that society was not interested in his needs.
1. Uncleanness. Literally, “nakedness,” and figuratively, as here, “shame” or “dishonor.” Her offense could not have been adultery, for that was punishable by death (Deut. 22:22; cf. Matt. 19:9). It was simply some behavior the husband considered improper or disgraceful. The Jews understood this Mosaic precept to mean that a man might divorce his wife for almost any reason (Matt. 19:3, 7). Christ explained, however, that it was not God’s will for divorce to be thus easily obtained (Matt. 19:4-6), and that this provision had been made only because of the “hardness” of their hearts (Matt. 19:8).
A bill of divorcement. Literally, “a note of separation.”
Give it. This was to be done formally, perhaps before witnesses, in order that it might be legally valid and incontestable.
Send her out. Another formal act. Presumably the husband was under obligation to send her forth provided with at least the necessary means to reach her father’s house in safety (see Gen. 21:14; cf. Deut. 15:13).
2. She may go. Her formal departure was a public announcement of the fact that she was no longer the man’s wife and was, therefore, free to remarry. The “note of separation,” or “note of cutting,” completely dissolved the marriage.
4. She is defiled. Consummation of marriage with a second husband made her unclean to her first husband. For him ever to take her again would be to commit adultery. She was unlawful to him (see Jer. 3:1).
Cause the land to sin. That is, by permitting moral depravity. Although God tolerated some things of which He certainly could not approve (see on Deut. 14:26), there were limits beyond which man might not transgress. The “land” is often personified, as though it felt and acted (see Lev. 18:25; Isa. 24:5).
Today some individuals refer to Deut. 24:1-4 as a basis for what they are pleased to consider “Christian divorce.” In reality, these verses open to our view the home life of the Jew, in which the taking of a wife was regarded as the acquiring of a piece of property. The husband’s authority over his wife was almost absolute. The purpose of the law here announced was to better the lot of Hebrew women. This law, far from establishing a low moral standard, or approving of one, represented a far higher standard than the cruel customs of the time recognized. The law guaranteed a divorced woman certain rights, and actually protected her from being considered as an adulteress and an outcast. She left her first husband’s home a free woman and a respected member of society, eligible to contract an honorable marriage. The writ of divorce stated that her first husband no longer had any legal claim upon her and that she was in no way obligated to him—she was free to become another man’s wife. Upon marrying again she did not become guilty of adultery, and the rights of her first husband were not infringed upon.
The Mosaic divorce law was instituted, not to annul the ideals of marriage as instituted by God at creation, but because of the “hardness” of men’s hearts (Matt. 19:8). The cast-off, unattached woman’s lot was a deplorable one. The bill of divorce alleviated her unfortunate lot. This law simply recognized the prevailing situation and sought to improve it. This was a law of permission, not one of command. These precise restrictions were designed to eliminate the easy divorce procedure the Hebrews had apparently learned in their association with heathen peoples.
It was against the concept of the wife as property that Christ spoke so emphatically (Matt. 5:27-32; 19:3-9). It had brought great misery and injustice to Jewish womanhood. The school of Hillel, which provided the popular Jewish religious philosophy of the time of Christ, interpreted the expression translated “some uncleanness” (Deut. 24:1) as meaning anything that may have become displeasing to the husband. The stricter, less popular Shammai school defined the “uncleanness” as some proved act of immodesty or adultery. In Christ’s time the Hillel school allowed divorce for such trivialities as the exposure of a woman’s arm in public, the burning of a husband’s meal, or when the husband found another woman more attractive. Of this lax attitude Josephus writes, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he never will use her again as his wife any more, for by these means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do” (Antiquities iv. 8. 23).
The law of Deut. 24:1-4 did not institute divorce, but tolerated it in view of the imperfections of human nature and the low moral concepts of God’s people at that time. To know God’s mind concerning marriage one must not camp at Deut. 24:1-4, but journey back to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, even as Jesus did (Matt. 5:27-32; 19:3-9). The written counsel of Moses for the people of his day is to be interpreted against the background of his day, not of ours, and ever with the divine ideal in view. Christ lifted men’s eyes once more to that divine ideal ordained in Eden. That first marriage provides the pattern God would have His people follow today.
5. A new wife. That is, if he is “newly married” (RSV; see ch. 20:5-8).
Go out to war. See ch. 20:7. It is to the advantage of the state to enact such measures as will honor and exalt marriage. This law provided time for the firm establishment of the home. Even more important, from the Hebrew point of view, it made more certain an heir to perpetuate the family name and to inherit the family land.
Business. Literally, “service,” as the Hebrew word is often translated (Num. 4:23, 30, 35, 39, 43; 8:24). This refers to any public service that would take him away from home.
6. Nether or the upper millstone. Literally, “both millstones or the part of one.” The word translated “upper millstone” may refer to one stone, or to a piece of the mill (Judges 9:53; 2 Sam. 11:21).
A man’s life. That is, by taking from him something essential to the preparation of his food, and thus endangering the health of his family. For centuries the poor of the East have lived on the verge of starvation, and a seemingly little thing such as this might prove tragic.
7. Stealing. See Ex. 21:16. Kidnaping a man to make a slave of him was a crime punishable by death. A man’s personal freedom is precious in God’s sight. Slavery is an inexcusable sin against God and against society, as well as against the slave. Yet slavery has existed in some form or other in Eastern lands from time immemorial. The laws of God gave Israel were designed to eliminate slavery, in time. Slavery violates every human right and decency.
8. Leprosy. This was the worst form of ceremonial uncleanness, and therefore the most careful precautions were taken in respect to it. Two lengthy chapters in Leviticus (chs. 13 and 14) list the symptoms in great detail. The “plague,” literally, “the stroke.” The same Hebrew word is used in chs. 17:8; 21:5.
9. Miriam. See Num. 12. Miriam was one of three prominent leaders of Israel (Micah 6:4). Yet she was suddenly smitten with the dreadful disease leprosy, and driven from the camp of Israel for seven days (Num. 12:14). Neither her outstanding position nor her personal relation to Moses protected her from it. The poorest and most miserable leper was treated no more harshly than a leper from some wealthy or officially prominent family. There was a tendency among the Jews to view all cases of leprosy as divine judgments, but it is not reasonable to take such a view of all such instances (Luke 13:1-6). Leprosy is a type of sin. The spiritual leper, whose very soul is diseased, can find no cure for his malady outside of Jesus Christ.
10. Into his house. A legal provision for the protection of the poor. His home and its contents would be of small material value, and would consist of only the barest of necessities. Such a family would probably own nothing more than their clothes, a few pots, and a primitive grinding mill, in addition, perhaps, to house and land. Yet such a home was to be respected and to remain inviolate. It had little to offer as security for a loan (see Ex. 22:26, 27), but it was not to be abused as something of little consequence. The owner would come to the door and display what he could offer as security. The lender was not to enter the home to pick and choose what he wished to take.
11. Thou shalt stand abroad. Literally, “outside thou shalt stand.” God has erected a fence around the poor and humble. The property rights of the needy are as dear to God as are those of the wealthy and socially prominent. Compare the parable of Matt. 18:23-35. God expects the Christian to manifest considerateness in dealing with his brethren.
12. His pledge. His outer cloak may have been the only worth-while thing the poor man had to offer as his “pledge.” To offer clothing as security was not uncommon (Deut. 24:17; Job 22:6; Prov. 20:16; 27:13; Amos 2:8). This pledge was not to be held overnight (Ex. 22:25, 26). The outer garment was used for many purposes (Ex. 12:34; Judges 8:25). On the requirement of restoring a poor man’s pledge see Eze. 18:7, 12; 33:15.
13. Righteousness. The faith of Abraham was reckoned to his account before God as righteousness. The manifestation of mercy to the poor and needy is equally pleasing to God (Matt. 25:34-36). Men are the objects of God’s tender love and mercy, and He would have us look upon our fellow men in the same way. The Hebrew word for “righteousness” appears in both masculine and feminine forms. The later prophets of Israel used the feminine form, as Moses does here, with reference to sympathetic attention to the poor and needy. They were dependent on God (Ps. 10:14; 72:12), who ever reminded His people that their obligation to Him included solicitous care for these needy ones (cf. 1 Sam. 2:8). But at the same time they were not to do their “alms,” literally, “righteousness,” before men (Matt. 6:1). They were to be righteous before the Lord.
14. Oppress. Literally, “defraud.” The same Hebrew word is used in Lev. 19:13; 1 Sam. 12:3, 4; Lev. 6:2, 4.
An hired servant. See Lev. 19:13; Jer. 22:13; Mal. 3:5; James 5:4.
Strangers. No difference was to be made between the natural Jew and the proselyte (Lev. 19:34).
His hire. Punctuality in the payment of wages is as positive a divine requirement as Sabbath observance or tithing. It is not an act of benevolence, but of justice. Compare the parable on laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1, 2, 8).
Setteth his heart. Literally, “lifteth up his soul.” He lived, as it were, from hand to mouth, and had no reserve.
16. Every man. It was not unusual among the heathen to condemn an entire family for the crime of one member (see Dan. 6:24). But God would have the transgressor himself bear the full penalty of his crime (2 Kings 14:6; Eze. 18:10-24). The Scriptures draw a clear line of distinction between a penalty inflicted for a wrong act, as here (see also Rom. 6:23), and the natural results of such an act (Ex. 20:5).
Pervert the judgment. See Ex. 22:22-24.
A widow’s raiment. Compare Job 24:3. Justice is not to be denied even the most helpless. The stranger, the widow, the orphan, and the helpless are to enjoy the full protection of the law (see Matt. 18:28-35).
18. Thou wast a bondman. Compare Lev. 19:33, 34. The oppressor who has himself experienced the bitterness of oppression is doubly culpable.
19. Thine harvest. God ordained numerous laws for easing the lot of the needy (Lev. 19:9, 10; 23:22). The landless were given the privilege of gleaning the fields, the vineyards, and the olive groves. The landowner could well spare the gleanings, and thereby bring happiness to the poor, relieve their need, and at the same time warm his own heart (see Prov. 11:24).
20. Olive tree. From season to season the harvesttime in particular would remind men of the value and beauty of a compassionate spirit. The existence of the poor among us provides an opportunity for cultivating the spirit of generosity. He who remains callous of heart at harvesttime, when he gathers in the bountiful gifts of nature, may scarcely be expected to exercise generosity at other times.
22. Remember. See v. 18; ch. 15:15. Our own difficult and disappointing experiences in life should make us sympathetic toward others who may at a later time be suffering as we once did.
1. Controversy. A dispute leading to litigation, as is plain from what follows. The word thus translated is from the root “to agitate,” “to quarrel noisily,” “to shout” (see Gen. 26:22; Job 9:3; Prov. 25:9). The noun form, as used here, appears also in Gen. 13:7; Job 31:13.
Unto judgment. “Into court” (RSV), the place of judgment (1 Kings 7:7; Isa. 28:6). The word “judgment” also refers to the process or procedure of justice in the courts (Job 14:3; Eccl. 11:9; 12:14). Finally, it is used of the decision or “judgment” handed down by a judge after hearing a case (Mal. 2:17).
Justify the righteous. Literally, “cause to be righteous the righteous one.” The one falsely accused was to be exonerated and acquitted. The word here translated “righteous” is also used of the righteousness of the justified sinner before God. Here it is used in the legal sense of pronouncing a man not guilty (see Ex. 22:9; 2 Sam. 15:4; Ps. 94:21; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23). Courts were established by God’s own direction.
Condemn the wicked. The words here translated “condemn” and “wicked” are from the same root. Literally, the expression would read, “to cause to be regulated the abnormal [unregulated] ones.” The related Arabic root means “to be loose” (of the limbs), and therefore “ill regulated” or “out of joint.” An endeavor was to be made to rehabilitate and regulate, rather than to punish in the sense of vengeance.
2. Before his face. That is, in open court, before the witnesses and the judges. He was made to lie down, and given the number of blows prescribed by the judge. Corporal punishment was usually administered by a stick (2 Sam. 7:14), though sometimes with thorn branches (Judges 8:7, 16), and sometimes with scourges or whips (1 Kings 12:11, 14). “Scorpions” were leather strips tied in hard knots containing sharp pieces of wood or metal.
3. Forty stripes. Compare the experience of Paul (2 Cor. 11:24). Later the Jews fixed the number at 39, lest inadvertently more than 40 should be given.
Vile. Unduly severe punishment would lead to resentment and the feeling that the man had been unjustly treated. One stroke beyond 40 would be considered unjust. When the punishment was inflicted in the synagogue, it was the custom to read such passages as Deut. 28:58, 59 during the flogging, and in the presence of witnesses.
4. The ox. From ancient times it was the custom to use oxen for treading out grain. In India today it is the usual thing to muzzle the animals. The treading out of the grain is often painful to the feet of the oxen, and it is not unusual for them to go lame as a result, especially if overworked at the task. This Mosaic precept not only protected the “ox” from cruel treatment but was designed to inculcate tenderheartedness—a trait that was not common among the heathen. Note the sentiments expressed in Prov. 12:10 on this very point. The apostle Paul referred to Deut. 25:4 as evidence that the ministry should receive a proper and adequate wage, in harmony with the sacred dignity of their office (see 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Matt. 10:10). Faithful service, whether of men or of animals, deserves generous recognition.
5. The duty of an husband’s brother. The purpose of such a marriage was to provide a successor to the deceased (see on Gen. 38:8; Matt. 22:25). The first son born to such a union, commonly called a levirate marriage, was to become the heir of the deceased brother, in order to perpetuate his name and estate. A brother who refused to carry out this duty was held in public disgrace. This custom was common among many ancient nations, with variations, and survived into modern times among descendants of some of the earlier peoples of India. The best-known Biblical example of the operation of the principle of levirate marriage is that of Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 1:22; 2:1 to 4:17).
6. His name. Compare Num. 27:4; Ruth 4:5. Men in all ages have valued perpetuation of the family name. This remains true in Oriental countries today, where no greater calamity can come to a man than to die without a male heir.
7. The elders. On the authority of the elders at the gate, see Deut. 21:19; 22:15; Ruth 4:1. The law did not require the brother to marry the widow if he felt that he could not love her. But in case he refused to marry her, she could enter a formal complaint against him.
8. The elders. The “elders” were the responsible city leaders to deal with him. They were no doubt fully acquainted with his circumstances and in a position to secure further information about the case. The “elders,” literally “elderly men,” were held in great respect, and exercised considerable authority.
9. Loose his shoe. Literally, his “sandal.” Jewish tradition indicates the shoe of the right foot. The deed here described was regarded as an act of indignity, inasmuch as failure to comply with the levirate law (see on v. 5) was looked upon as a mark of selfishness (see Ruth 4:6). The placing of the shod foot on property proclaimed either one’s contempt for it or one’s rightful ownership over it (Ps. 60:8; 108:9). Accordingly, the removal of the man’s shoe by his brother’s widow proclaimed the man’s unworthiness. He refused to do what was rightfully to be expected of him. Compare S. of Sol. 7:1 for the figure of the sandaled foot as a picture of beauty and desirableness. To go unshod was looked upon as degrading (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2, 4) or as a token of humility (Ex. 3:5; Joshua 5:15).
In his face. Jewish commentators usually interpret this as spitting on the ground “before his face.” This seems reasonable, because the preposition is not “upon,” but “by” or “before” (Deut. 11:25; Joshua 10:8). Spitting before the face was thought to be humiliating (Num. 12:14). This verb appears three times in the Hebrew Bible.
So shall it be done. The only exceptions were the high priest, who was not subject to the levirate law (Lev. 21:13, 14), brothers living at a distance, and the aged.
11. Strive together. In Ex. 21:22 is recorded the case of men quarreling, and the compensation to be given to a pregnant woman injured as a result of a fight between the men. In this case, legal protection is afforded the man. Some commentators have suggested that this refers to the widow of vs. 5-10 taking hold of her brother-in-law to force him into marriage with her. If such be the application, this law would forbid the woman passing beyond the bounds of decency. However, the context makes it clear that this was a personal quarrel in which the wife of one of the men endeavored to help her husband. The word here translated “strive” might better be translated “wrestle.” It is rendered variously in Ex. 2:13; 21:22; Lev. 24:10; 2 Sam. 14:6.
12. Cut off her hand. This was not to be done by the man she grasped, for he would be incapacitated, perhaps permanently injured. He would bring his complaint before the judges. This law is derived from the principle stated in Ex. 21:24. Some Jewish commentators reject the idea that this was to be taken literally. The rabbis later changed the sentence to one of heavy fine.
13. Divers weights. “Two kinds of weights” (RSV), a lighter weight used in selling and a larger one in purchasing. Literally, “a stone and a stone, large and small.” Ancient Hebrew weights were usually made of stone. Amos 8:5 indicates that this particular type of dishonesty was not uncommon among the Jews. Note the statement about different weights in Prov. 20:23, as an “abomination” to Jehovah, whereas just weights are approved by the Lord (Prov. 16:11). The prophet Micah makes a similar statement on God’s displeasure with unjust weights (Micah 6:11). God designs that among His people principles of justice and equity shall prevail. Those who serve God will not cheat their fellow men (see 1 John 4:20).
15. Perfect and just weight. See Lev. 19:35, 36. The tendency to indulge the temptation to make easy profits is not always easily eliminated in business dealings. We speak of honesty as being the best policy. Yet the policy followed by some businessmen is as cruel as that of tooth and claw in the jungle. It must be admitted that such dealings have often brought men enormous riches, and even high repute in society. Yet without honesty there can never be peace of mind and a clear conscience before God.
17. Amalek. The reference here is to the hostility of the Amalekites toward Israel on their journey from Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16). It is true that at the time of the writing of the book of Deuteronomy the Amalekites were no longer a threat to Israel. Yet Jehovah did not forget the injury they had done to His people.
18. Smote the hindmost. Reflecting cowardice and cruelty (see Ex. 17:8-13).
He feared not God. This was the reason for his evil conduct. Indifference to right principles can scarcely provide a solid foundation upon which to build kindness and love for one’s neighbors.
19. Blot out. The Lord is a God of love and righteousness. The command to wipe out the Amalekites as a nation was first addressed to Joshua (Ex. 17:14), but the actual work of judgment upon this people, which had filled up its cup of iniquity, was carried out in stages. Barak and Gideon (Judges 5:14; 6:3; 7:12), Saul and Samuel (1 Sam. 15:1-9), and David (1 Sam. 27:8, 9; 30:1, 17), all participated in executing the decree against them. Finally came the children of Simeon, who completed the task (1 Chron. 4:42, 43).
1. Come in. That is, settled in the Holy Land. This form of expression has already been used a number of times (ch. 17:14).
2. The first. On the law of first fruits see Num. 18:12; Deut. 18:4.
Unto the place. A portion of the first ripe fruits was to be taken in a basket, brought to the sanctuary, and given to the priest on duty.
3. Thou shalt go. That is, at the time of the three great feasts (Ex. 23:14-16). In later times the worshipers were to bring their offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem for these feasts, praising God in His sanctuary. With confession of sin and grateful prayer they were to acknowledge God’s goodness in bringing them out of Egyptian bondage into the Promised Land.
4. Before the altar. The priest waved the basket and placed it before the Lord, in acknowledgment of Jehovah’s ownership of the land. This ceremony was to be one of joy in God, as the Giver of harvest, peace, and prosperity. The principle of returning to God a portion of the blessings received from Him is one stated by the apostle Paul for Christians to emulate (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:7-9).
5. A Syrian ready to perish. Literally, “a wandering Aramean” (RSV). This is a reference to the humble origin of the nation, to Rebekah and Leah, who were from Padan-aram (Gen. 25:20), and to Jacob, who spent a number of years there (Gen. 29 to 31). Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was designated as “the Syrian,” literally “the Aramean” (Gen. 25:20; 28:5, 6; 31:20, 24). The expression translated “ready to perish” was used animals that strayed and became lost (Deut. 22:3; 1 Sam. 9:3, 20), and also of men lost (Ps. 119:176) and in danger of perishing (Job 6:18). The nomadic origin of Israel is the point to which Moses refers here.
Down into Egypt. See Gen. 46:26; 47:4 for the journey to Egypt and for their fewness in number at that time.
A nation. See Ex. 1:7, 9, 12, 20. Jacob is pictured as a Syrian or Aramean, in part because of his long residence in northern Mesopotamia, whence Abraham had come to Canaan (Gen. 11:31). From this small beginning emerged a great nation. The presentation of the first fruits commemorated the deliverance of the first-born from Egypt.
6. Afflicted us. The blessing of God that cause them to increase so rapidly, became also the reason for severe persecution by the Egyptians (Ex. 1:9-14; cf. Num. 20:15).
7. The Lord heard. See Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7-9; 4:31; Num. 20:16.
10. Set it. That is, give it to the priest, who would present it to the Lord (v. 4).
Worship. The acknowledgement of God’s gracious mercies is a vital part of worship. Jehovah is a covenant-keeping God who faithfully carries out His promises. His people can scarcely do less than express their appreciation for His faithfulness. Literally, “bow down,” that is, prostrate thyself (Gen. 37:10; Ex. 11:8; Lev. 26:1; Isa. 60:14).
11. Rejoice. There was to be feasting and rejoicing at the time of offering the first fruits. Not only the immediate family but Levites, neighbors, and strangers might be invited to share in the bounties of heaven (mentioned in chs. 12:6, 7; 16:10-12).
12. The third year. In the third year a “tithe” was to be given to the local poor (see on ch. 14:28, 29), in addition to that always paid to the Levites. God did not forget the less fortunate, nor should His people do so.
They may eat. The legalist or moralist might speak of the poor as suffering on account of their own shortcomings. It is true, of course, that not all are as careful, energetic, or diligent as they might be. But if they are in need they are not to be passed by on that account. God deliberately placed the Levites in a position of dependence on their brethren, as a challenge to the liberality of Israel.
13. I have brought. Such a confession of duty fulfilled was to be a yearly privilege. The poor, with the Levite, were to be provided for. The offerer affirmed that God’s claims on him had been fully met, that the “tithe” had been dutifully paid as designated by God, to be applied in harmony with His instructions. As long as the “tithe” remained in a private home, that home was in debt to God. He could not bless that family until the debt had been discharged in full.
14. My mourning. Probably in connection with ceremonial uncleanness for the dead (see Lev. 7:20; 21:1; cf. Hosea 9:4). Various circumstances might produce uncleanness, and thereby “mourning,” rendering it impossible for that person to appear before God with rejoicing. Not only would the person involved be ceremonially unclean, but the consecrated things themselves would become unclean if he partook of them while in his “unclean” state (see on Deut. 14:23-26).
For any unclean use. Or, “while I was unclean” (RSV). He would not deliberately put the “tithe” to an “unclean” use.
For the dead. Or, “to the dead” (RSV). From ancient times the heathen believed that the dead could be made happy by gifts of food and other things of which they might be in need. It is noteworthy that the Hebrew religion not only made no provision for such rites, but, as here, specifically excluded them. In heathen lands the custom of placing food at the grave of the deceased as a gift to his “spirit” (see Tobit 4:17; Ecclus. 30:18) is still practiced, as in India and China.
Perhaps the expenses incident to a funeral were heavy, and the temptation to use part of the “tithe” in meeting these expenses would in all probability not be uncommon.
15. Look down. A plea for God’s gracious regard. It is, as well, a devout acknowledgement of the exalted position of God, far above all human habitation, and of the fact that all blessings are from Him. Compare the words of David before the congregation (1 Chron. 29:11-13). See also 2 Chron. 30:27; Isa. 63:15; Jer. 25:30; Zech. 2:13.
Bless. The word thus translated means “to kneel.” One derived noun means “knee,” and another, “a blessing.” The expression “bless God” presents the picture of worship to God on bended knee.
As thou swarest. A grateful acknowledgement of God’s unswerving loyalty to His covenant and faithfulness to all His promises. Not only is Jehovah able to fulfill His promises, but it is impossible that He could ever fall short of perfection in carrying them out (see v. 3, also chs. 1:8; 6:3).
16. Statutes. The various words used in this text comprehend all the requirements God made of His people, in respect to not only religious duties but also civil and social. Moses refers to their stay “in the valley over against Beth-peor” (ch. 3:29), where he presented to the people all the laws that had been revealed to him in Horeb. Here begins a solemn charge to all the people. It is a reminder that they had entered into covenant relation with God, that in so doing they had assumed the most solemn obligations. And on His part Jehovah promised to bless them.
Keep and do them. Their part in the solemn covenant. This is a call to sincerity of life with respect to the covenant relationship (see chs. 4:6; 7:12).
17. Thou hast avouched. In Hebrew the statement thus introduced is most emphatic: “Thou hast this day caused Jehovah to proclaim that He is to thee thy God.” This was accomplished by Israel listening to the recitation of all the requirements of the covenant, and acknowledging their own obligation to abide by them.
18. The Lord hath avouched. This parallels the emphatic expression of v. 17. It reads, literally, “Jehovah hath this day caused thee to say that thou art to Him a people of possession,” that is, His own private possession.
Peculiar people. See on Ex. 19:5; 1 Peter 2:9. The same Hebrew word here translated “peculiar” appears also in Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6. In 1 Chron. 29:3 the word is translated “own proper good”; and in Mal. 3:17, “jewels.”
Promised. Both parties assumed obligations. The covenant was mutual, and the promise, as at Sinai, was conditional Ex. 19:5-8; 24:3, 7.
19. High. See Deut. 28:1 and on Gen. 17:1. The adjective here translated “high” is one of the names of God (see Gen. 14:18-20, 22; Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 9:2; Isa. 14:14). In the divine purpose the name of the Most High is placed upon God’s people (Num. 6:27).
Honour. The word thus translated is from the verb “to beautify,” “to glorify.” The derived noun means “turban,” “headdress,” originally, an “ornament.” For other instances of the translation of the same word see Isa. 46:13; 62:3. Note the inward significance of this as expressed by Christ (John 17:10), and its application as touching the church today, as commented on by the apostle Peter (1 Peter 2:9, 10).
Thus closes the so-called Book of the Covenant, and with it, Moses’ second oration.
1. With the elders. For the first time in Deuteronomy the elders join Moses in exhorting the people. The reason for this is not given (see ch. 31:9), but may have been that the death of Moses would place a greater responsibility upon them as leaders.
All the commandments. Probably inclusive of all the instructions God had revealed to Moses.
2. Stones. Jewish commentators say that there were three sets of stones erected, one in the midst of Jordan itself (Joshua 4:9), another at Gilgal (Joshua 4:20), and a third on Mt. Ebal (Deut. 27:4). Others think that 12 pillars in all were erected, as when Moses ratified the covenant between Jehovah and Israel (Ex. 24:4). Nothing is said as to the size or number of these stones, except that they were sufficiently large to provide space for writing on them the Ten Commandments and the laws given through Moses.
Plaister them. In many nations it was the custom to engrave the wording in the stone itself; here, an Egyptian process was followed. A coat of well-ground lime, which would set nearly as hard as modern cement, was plastered over the stones. This coating would present a smooth, hard surface for the pigmented lettering. Such inscriptions, however, were not permanent for sooner or later the plaster would crack and fall away. With this type of work the Israelites must have become familiar in Egypt, and some were no doubt expert in it. The verb translated “to plaister” is found only in vs. 2 and 4 of this chapter. The noun form, “plaister,” also appears only here, and as “lime” in Isa. 33:12 and Amos 2:1.
3. This law. Probably the actual legislation, not the blessings and curses later enumerated in vs. 14-26 (see PP 500). The word here translated “law” is torah, a general term for all sacred instruction, and not confined to the Decalogue. Here it refers specifically to the will of God as revealed to Moses.
This was to be written legibly, and conspicuously set up in a central location, a perpetual reminder of the covenant between God and Israel (see Joshua 8:30-35). Today we have God’s revealed will in our homes, but Israel had no such privilege as this. Accordingly, the very stones of the countryside were to proclaim it for all men to read, lest they forget.
4. Ebal. See ch. 11:29. The Samaritan Pentateuch here substitutes “Mount Gerizim,” the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. As elsewhere, the translators altered the words of Moses to correspond with their beliefs. Mt. Ebal is about 18 mi. from the nearest ford across the Jordan, and about 30 mi. from Gilgal, where Israel would be camped.
5. Altar. The dedication of a new altar would be the occasion of sacrifices and a renewal of the covenant with God.
Any iron tool. See on Ex. 20:25. This word is used of iron to be worked up into tools, and of various metal implements and utensils (Gen. 4:22; 1 Chron. 22:3, 16; 29:2, 7) See also Prov. 27:17; Eccl. 10:10; Isa. 10:34; Amos 1:3.
6. Whole stones. There was to be no cutting, shaping, or polishing of the stones, lest attempts to decorate them should result in forms that might become objects of worship. According to Jewish commentators, these stones were taken from the bed of the Jordan. Such altars of rough stone were built upon various special occasions, as by Gideon and Manoah (Judges 6:24, 26; 13:19), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17), Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24:25). Compare Moses’ 12 pillars, erected when Israel originally entered into the covenant relationship at Horeb (Ex. 24:4). Later Elijah took 12 stones and built an altar as part of his endeavor to bring Israel back into covenant relation with God (1 Kings 18:31, 32).
Burnt offerings. The word thus translated is from the verb root “to go up,” “to ascend.” The noun, used here, refers to an offering wholly consumed on the altar (see on Lev. 1:3), in contrast with other offerings, only portions of which were other offerings, only portions of which were placed upon the altar. Only the hide and such portions as could not be washed clean did not come to the altar. This offering symbolized the uplifting of the soul in worship.
If the offering was a beast, it had to be a male without blemish (Lev. 1:3, 10; 22:18, 19); if a fowl, a turtledove or a young pigeon (Lev. 1:14). The young pigeon was usually offered by the poor (see Lev. 5:7; 12:8), and a lamb by persons who could afford it (Lev. 12:6; Num. 6:14) and by the nation (Lev. 23:12). This offering denoted the complete surrender of the offerer, fully dedicated to the Lord (see Ex. 24:5-7).
Peace offerings. Offerings of thanks expressed appreciation for salvation, for health, and for deliverance. The safe crossing of the Jordan and entrance into the promised inheritance would provide good cause for rejoicing.
The law written upon the stones would be both a reminder of duty and a witness to transgression. The offerings would testify to mercy, grace, and forgiveness of sin—to the fact that full provision had been made for the sinner’s repentance. They bore witness, as well, to renewed consecration. The peace offerings were reminiscent of the love, mercy, and grace with which God meets the repentant one. At the altar of unhewn stones, God and man met. Here reconciliation was effected. Here a new life was begun.
Rejoice. The repentant soul would realize that the peace offering was a banquet of joy and happiness. Fellowship with God had been restored, and at the sacred feast God and man communed together. Unity and peace prevailed between Jehovah and His people.
8. Very plainly. Literally, “making it distinct, doing it well.”
9. This day. That is, the day of Moses’ final address to the people. As they entered upon their inheritance God confirmed the covenant made with their fathers (see ch. 26:18). The entrance into the Land of Promise became an appropriate occasion for a restatement of the provisions of the covenant. God was about to fulfill His covenant promise—the gift of Canaan—and Israel could not afford to forget their promise to obey Him, lest they forfeit the land of inheritance. It is probable that the “elders” (v. 1) were stationed at strategic points throughout the camp to relay the words of Moses to the vast throng. This renewal of the covenant seems to have almost equaled in impressiveness the ratification of the covenant at Sinai. At Sinai most of the adults who now took part in this ceremony of rededication had either been children, or were not yet born.
10. Obey. The children of Israel were entering upon solemn and weighty responsibilities. Fellowship with God always entails heavy obligations. Such is the “holy calling” of the Christian (1 Peter 2:1-9).
11. Charged. The verb thus translated is in the emphatic form and means that Moses commanded the people most earnestly, even vehemently. The blessings and the curses were to be repeated in ritual form.
12. Mount Gerizim. The mountain south of Shechem.
13. Mount Ebal. This mountain lies north of Shechem, opposite Gerizim, with a narrow valley in between. The two mountains thus formed a large natural amphitheater, of sufficient size to accommodate the vast throng. The speakers were to stand in the center, in the valley; the tribes were to assemble on the slopes of the two mountains. Six of the tribes descended from Leah and Rachel were to respond to the blessings. The tribes by whom response was to be made to the curses for disobedience, were the descendants of Zilpah and Bilhah, together with those of Leah’s youngest son, Zebulun, and of Reuben, who forfeited his birthright because of his sin against his father (Gen. 35:22; 49:4).
14. The Levites. Their voices could be heard by all the assembled multitude. By the reading of the law and the response of the people God and His people entered anew into a solemn covenant that held blessings for obedience and penalties for disobedience. The impressive occasion would not soon be forgotten.
Here was a foretaste of Christianity: the guilt (James 2:10) that comes with the broken law (Rom. 1:32); the assent that God’s requirements are just and good (Rom. 7:12-14); the redemption from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), with the inability of the law to lay hands upon the man in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1); the final victory and the Promised Land (Rev. 15:2; 21:1-7).
15. Image. See Ex. 20:4, 23; 34:17; cf. Jer. 10:3-5; Hosea 8:6; 13:2; also Isa. 40:19; 41:7; 44:10-20.
Secret place. It is strange how men delude themselves into thinking they can hide anything from God (see Deut. 13:6; Job 31:27).
16. Setteth light by. Literally, “dishonors.” The penalty of death was upon idolaters and upon those who cursed their parents (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9).
18. The blind. On the misleading of the blind, see Lev. 19:14.
24. Smiteth. A curse on murder (Ex. 20:13; 21:12; Lev. 24:17), even undetected and therefore unpunished murder.
25. Reward to slay. The taking of a bribe for murder (see Ex. 23:7, 8; Deut. 16:19; Eze. 22:12). Perhaps this charge is also addressed to judges who might be bribed in connection with a murder case.
26. Confirmeth not. Literally, “to cause to stand,” therefore “to establish,” “to cause to endure,” “to make binding,” “to carry out.” The same form of the verb is also rendered “establish” (Deut. 28:9; Gen. 17:21; Ps. 78:5); “perform” (1 Kings 8:20; 2 Chron. 6:10); “uphold” (Job 4:4).
In Gal. 3:10 the apostle Paul quotes from this verse.
1. Hearken diligently. Literally, “hearkening thou shalt hearken” (see also ch. 7:12). This is an invitation to very serious consideration (see Ex. 23:22). After giving the instructions for the ceremony of cursing and blessing, for use on a future occasion, Moses returns in this chapter to repeat with some amplification the rewards and promises for obedience and disobedience.
Moses was now approaching the close of his life. He was again constrained to place more fully before his people the alternatives of obedience and disobedience. Moses knew that the course he was placing before Israel was educative and disciplinary. The law was the foundation of their education as a people (Gal. 3:17, 24), By his opening words, “If thou shalt hearken diligently,” he notified them that their eternal destiny was in their own hands. God’s hands are yet tied by man’s choice; He has no alternative but to reward a man in harmony with his conduct (Matt. 6:33).
2. Blessings. Like the showers upon the land, rich blessings would fall upon the obedient.
3. In the city. This verse constitutes a summary statement of all that follows. The activities enumerated in the following verses cover the whole of Israel’s life, private and national.
4. Thy body. Preferably, “thy womb” (as in Gen. 30:2; Deut. 7:13; etc.). A promise of no untimely births or miscarriages, and of success in rearing healthy children (see Deut. 28:11).
Thy ground. That is, of all cultivated crops, and therefore a promise of adequate and seasonable rains and the kind of weather necessary to ensure abundant crops (see Deut. 7:13; 30:9; also Ex. 23:26).
Thy cattle. Translated from the usual word for larger animals, such as camels and cattle (Ex. 9:25; 12:12; Ps. 135:8; Jer. 50:3). It is from the verb “to be dumb in speech,” “to be tongue-tied.”
Thy kine. The word translated “kine” is from the verb “to learn.” The same root in Arabic means “to cleave to,” “to become familiar with.” The noun, as here, means “trained,” “docile,” and “tame,” and is used of domestic animals trained in farm labor and man’s service in general.
The flocks. Perhaps better understood to mean the females of the sheep and the goats, the ewes. The word translated “sheep” includes various small animals such as sheep and goats. Here, then, is a blessing upon the females, that they may bear in season and produce healthy stock.
5. Basket. Jewish commentators refer this to the vessels in which bread and fruit were kept. It refers to the daily food supplies of the children of Israel, the promise being that they would not lack their daily needs.
Store. Jewish commentators apply this to the kneading trough, in which was kept that part of the food not yet ready for use. This promise assures Israel there will be no lack, but always something in store for use. Compare the widow’s vessel of oil (2 Kings 4:6).
6. Comest in. The expressions of v. 6 apply to all the activities of life (see Deut. 31:2; 2 Sam. 3:25; Ps. 121:8; Isa. 37:28).
7. Thine enemies. Compare Ex. 34:24.
Seven ways. As their enemies advanced upon them in tight formation, rank upon rank of fighting men, as was the custom, they would be scattered as if they were an unorganized mob (see Judges 7:21, 22 on the Midianites, and 2 Kings 7:7 on the Syrians).
8. Storehouses. This verse is comprehensive of all activities connected with earning a living. Compare Prov. 3:10 for “storehouses” or barns, and Deut. 12:7 for the daily round of activity.
9. Holy. This does not refer to holiness as an abstract idea, but to Israel as being set apart to be God’s people, and so acknowledged before all nations (see on ch. 26:18, 19).
If. Compare Deut. 7:12; Ex. 19:5. The blessings of God are conditional, dependent upon Israel’s obedience to His just requirements. Moses held up before them their eternal destiny, as Christ later did (Matt. 6:33).
10. Called by the name of the Lord. Literally, “that the name of Jehovah is applied over thee,” meaning that Israel would be recognized as God’s property (see on chs. 14:2; 26:18). Thus God’s name is applied to the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 25:29). All men would know Jehovah’s relation to His people (Isa. 61:9).
11. Plenteous. All material blessings are included. Literally, “make thee to have a surplus” (see Deut. 30:9; 2 Kings 4:43, 44).
12. His good treasure. The statement reads literally, “Jehovah shall open for thee His treasury” (see Joshua 6:19, 24; Ps. 33:7, “storehouses”; Jer. 50:25, “armoury”).
Lend unto many. Compare ch. 15:6. The ability to lend implies abundance.
13. The head. A promise of future leadership (see Isa. 9:14; 19:15). The contrast is stated in Deut. 28:43, 44.
15. Not hearken. The word translated “hearken” includes more than simply hearing; it implies obedience as well. This is well illustrated by the words of Daniel, “hearken and do” (Dan. 9:19).
16. Cursed. Compare this with v. 3. The blessings for obedience would exceed human imagination. But the penalties for disobedience would be equally impressive.
20. Perish quickly. Compare the expressions of Ps. 39:11, “consume away like a moth,” and Zeph. 1:18, “a speedy riddance of all them.”
21. The pestilence. See Lev. 26:25 for the threatened pestilence. On one occasion 70,000 men died (2 Sam. 24:15; see also Jer. 14:12; 21:6, 7, 9; Eze. 5:12; 6:11, 12; Amos 4:10).
22. Smite thee. The various visitations given in this verse are difficult to define. To seek to identify them with modern diseases is to indulge in speculation. It is generally conceded that the first four mentioned pertain to human beings, and the last three to crops. It is thought that the word translated “sword,” ch-r-b, as originally written by Moses, should have been vocalized by the Masoretes as choreb, “drought,” rather than as chereb, “sword.” The word “drought” harmonizes better with the context.
23. Brass. The “heavens,” ordinarily thought of as a source of moisture, would, under the curse of God, provide no more water than could be expected from brass (see Lev. 26:19; Jer. 14:1-10).
Iron. Without moisture, the earth would be baked so hard that the primitive tools of the time could not cultivate it. The people would perish for lack of food.
24. Powder and dust. The great desert on the eastern frontier of Palestine was a ready arsenal for these weapons of God. From the desert blew the fearful dust storm known as the sirocco.
25. Flee seven ways. They would march against their enemies as a compact, well-organized army, fully equipped, but they would be defeated and flee like an unorganized, leaderless mob.
Be removed. Literally, “be for a horror.” The word thus translated does not include the idea of “dispersion,” as in the LXX. Its root means “to tremble,” “to quake,” “to fear” (Eccl. 12:3; Dan. 5:19; 6:26). If the Hebrews remained disobedient, they were to become a fearful example of poverty, disease, and suffering to all non-Jews (see 2 Chron. 29:8; Isa. 28:19).
26. Thy carcase. A threat repeated in Jer. 7:33 (see Jer. 15:3; 16:4; 19:7; 34:20). The Jews were particularly sensitive with respect to their dead lying unburied. Such exposure was regarded as the utmost in punishment (see Jer. 22:19; 36:30; cf. Ps. 79:2, 3).
Fray them. Literally, “frighten them away,” that is, the beasts and birds of prey that would devour their dead bodies.
27. Botch. Or “boil.” The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to be hot,” “to be inflamed” (see Deut. 28:35; Ex. 9:9-11; Lev. 13:18-23; 2 Kings 20:7; Job 2:7; Isa. 38:21). Skin diseases of various kinds have always been common in the Orient.
Emerods. Literally, “swellings,” usually understood to refer to hemorrhoidal swellings in the anus. Some have suggested “tumors” (see 1 Sam. 5:6, 9, 12).
28. Blindness. Though physical blindness is common enough in the East, it is generally conceded that here the true application is to a lack of good sense in government policies, resulting in ruin to the nation (see Zech. 12:4; cf. Isa. 13:8; 29:9-12, 18; Jer. 4:9; 25:16, 18; Zeph. 1:17).
29. Save thee. That is, from foreign enemies. Compare the failure of Egypt to deliver them (Jer. 37:7; 46:17).
30. A wife. The “husband” would lose his wife even before the marriage could be consummated. This was accounted as a most grievous curse, as conversely marriage was esteemed a great blessing.
Lie with. The word thus translated means “to ravish,” “to violate” (see Isa. 13:16; Zech. 14:2). It refers to violence such as might be expected of soldiers drunk with victory.
31. Thine ox. Domestic animals would be helpless to do anything in their own defense (see Isa. 1:7).
None to rescue. Literall, “no savior for your” (see Deut. 28:29).
33. The fruit. Compare the promise of Isa. 65:21-25.
34. Thou shalt be mad. That is, driven to despair, realizing the futility of attempting to do anything to relieve the situation.
36. Serve other gods. A state of complete apostasy. The nation would be abandoned by Jehovah, its king taken into exile with his people, and the people themselves ignominiously worshiping the idols professed by the nation by whom they had been taken captive (see Jer. 9:15, 16; 16:13).
37. An astonishment. It would be almost beyond comprehension that a nation once so favored by God, should fall so low as Israel fell (see 1 Kings 9:7-9; Jer. 18:15-17; 19:8).
A proverb. When the heathen wished to express contempt for a person, they would do so by calling him a Jew.
38. But little. A word picture of famine. For a fulfillment of this preceding the captivity in Babylon see Jer. 14:1-6.
The locust. Or “grasshoppers,” as in Judges 6:5; 7:12; Job 39:20; etc.
39. Worms. Presumably pests that would devour their grapevines.
40. Not anoint. Compare Micah 6:15 for similar language. On the Oriental custom of anointing the body with olive oil, see 2 Sam. 12:20; 14:2; 2 Chron. 28:15.
42. Locust. Translated from a different word from that used in v. 38, but a variety of locust.
Consume. Literally, “to take possession of,” “to inherit,” “to dispossess,” and so used more than 200 times in the OT. The locusts would completely take over the land and leave it a wilderness.
43. Above thee. Compare ch. 10:19. There is nothing more galling to a nation than to have foreigners in the country prospering at the expense of a poverty-stricken native population.
44. The tail. The very antithesis of God’s purpose in establishing His covenant with His people (vs. 12, 13).
45. Thou hearkenedst not. The curses of God were to follow progressively one upon another until Israel was brought to utter ruin. The reason for all this was their disregard of the terms of the covenant they had voluntarily entered into with God. They had taken solemn oath before Him to be loyal to His expressed will. Their utter repudiation of God and His covenant brought about a complete reversal of the purpose of God for them. In proportion to the possible exaltation of Israel before all nations, so would their degradation be.
46. For a wonder. Compare ch. 4:34. The Jews were to be looked upon as peculiarly under God’s displeasure, as bearing the marks of His punitive hand. This was to continue forever—as their prosperity would have, had they been faithful.
48. A yoke of iron. Compare Jer. 28:12-14 for a fulfillment of this prophecy.
Destroyed. Literally, “exterminated,” “annihilated” (see Eze. 14:9; Amos 2:9; 9:8; Micah 5:14; Haggai 2:22).
49. A nation. Commentators have applied this prophecy to various nations—usually to Assyria (Isa. 10:5) and Babylon (Jer. 5:15). Others insist upon the Romans, pointing to the eagle of the Roman standards. Jewish commentators speak of the attack of the Roman forces led by Vespasian and Titus, who captured Jerusalem in a.d. 70.
As the eagle flieth. Literally, “as the vulture swoopeth down.” Compare a similar figure in Job 9:26; 39:27-29; Matt. 24:28. The swift swoop of the vulture down from the sky to its prey is noted in Hosea 8:1, and is likened to the attacks of the ancient Assyrian armies and of the forces of the Chaldeans (Jer. 48:40; 49:22; Hab. 1:8).
Not understand. See Jer. 5:15. The same expression is used by the prophet Isaiah in speaking of the Assyrians (Isa. 28:11; 33:19). Many Christian, and the majority of Jewish commentators see these words fulfilled in the Roman armies. The Assyrian and Chaldean peoples spoke languages closely related to the language of the Hebrews. The Latin tongue was entirely strange to the Jews, in that it was different from theirs, and in that they had had no contact with the Romans.
50. Of fierce countenance. Literally, “of inflexible countenance,” from the verb root “to be strong,” “to be mighty,” “to be formidable.” The same word is used in Dan. 8:23 of the Roman power. This word is translated “fierce” (Gen. 49:7), “strong” (Num. 13:28), “mighty” (Ps. 59:3), “roughly” (Prov. 18:23), “greedy” (Isa. 56:11).
Not regard. Compare the Chaldeans (2 Chron. 36:17; Lam. 5:6-12) and the Medes (Isa. 13:18).
51. Be destroyed. The fulfillment of the various curses upon a disobedient people teaches us that God does not forever refrain from inflicting the judgment that sin demands. It is no comfort to remember that one’s deplorable condition is the result of his own willful ways.
52. Besiege thee. A word picture of the flight of the people to their walled towns and cities, with the countryside, where the food of the nation is produced, deserted.
Walls come down. Even their last strongholds were to be reduced, leaving them without refuge. Starvation, due to the fields lying waste, would contribute to the fall of the fenced cities (see Jer. 5:17).
53. Thine own body. Better, “of thy womb.” For a similar dreadful curse see Lev. 26:29; Jer. 19:9; Eze. 5:10. This was fulfilled in the siege of Samaria by the Syrians (2 Kings 6:26-29), in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Lam. 2:20; 4:10), and again at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus.
54. Eye shall be evil. This may refer to a man watching and begrudging every morsel he may see in the possession of other members of his house, and to evil designs against his own kin.
55. Nothing left. A description of the most terrible famine conditions imaginable. The gnawing pain of want can sweep away all traces of delicacy and culture.
56. Delicate woman. A description of women who have been taught and been brought up to observe and practice all the graces of conduct associated with gentle breeding and culture.
57. Her young one. Literally, “her afterbirth.” The mother would be so distracted with hunger that she would eat the afterbirth, and then the child she gave birth to (see on v. 53).
58. This book. This probably refers not only to the book of Deuteronomy but also to the torah (see chs. 17:19; 27:3, 8; 29:29; 31:12; 32:46).
Fearful name. The name is often used of the person and the person’s character and reputation (see Jer. 14:7, 21; Eze. 20:9, 14; Ps. 25:11; 31:3; Isa. 48:9; 66:5).
59. Wonderful. Better, “extraordinary,” or “difficult to understand.” It was in their severity and duration that the plagues were exceptional (see Isa. 29:14).
60. Diseases. Compare Deut. 7:15; and by contrast, Ex. 15:26.
61. This law. For instances of this expression see Deut. 29:21; Joshua 1:8.
63. Destroy you. Compare the opposite emotion expressed of God in Hosea 11:8; also Jer. 32:41.
64. Scatter thee. Compare Lev. 26:33; Deut. 4:27; Jer. 9:16.
65. No ease. Literally, “no rest” (see Jer. 31:2; 50:34).
Failing of eyes. Due to weariness resulting from looking for deliverance that failed to come (see Job 11:20; 17:5; Ps. 119:123).
Sorrow of mind. Literally, “pining away of soul.”
66. Hang in doubt. Literally, “hung up for thee in front,” that is, like something hanging on a thread that is in constant danger of breaking.
67. Fear. The word translated “fear” involves dread, awe, terror, and trembling. Job had such an experience as depicted here (see Job 7:2-4; cf. Prov. 28:1).
68. Into Egypt. No more fearful punishment could have been inflicted than a forced return to the land of slavery from which God had delivered them.
Ships. Probably engaged in the slave traffic (see Eze. 27:13; Joel 3:6; Amos 1:9). Here ends Moses’ third oration.
1. These are the words. In the Hebrew this is ch. 28:69. The text, however, may be applied as well to what follows.
In the land of Moab. Israel was still encamped at the same spot mentioned in ch. 1:5.
The covenant. Not another covenant in addition to that made at Sinai, but rather a reaffirmation of it. At Sinai the covenant had been set forth and ratified by blood (see Ex. 24).
3. Temptations. Better, “tests” (see chs. 4:34; 7:19), that is, trying experiences through which God ordained that they should develop character.
Thine eyes have seen. Compare ch. 10:21. The natural, physical sight may be excellent, and the spiritual discernment almost negligible. Spiritual sight is a gift from God; without this gift, a man is dull of understanding (Eze. 20:49; Ps. 106:7).
4. Heart to perceive. Otherwise, the senses would have been attuned to perceive God’s will, and the will devoted to carrying it out. The man who senses the need of spiritual discernment and seeks it will receive it (see Ps. 25:9, 12, 14; 119:18). Compare the contrast Jesus Christ drew between the Jews and His disciples (see Matt. 13:10-17; see also John 7:17). The mind of the unregenerate does not have the capacity to appreciate and understand spiritual values. But when a man turns sincerely to God, his spiritual eyesight will be restored (see John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17).
6. Bread. Compare ch. 8:3. Aside from such purchases as they were able to make from the people of the surrounding countryside, the Israelites were absolutely dependent upon God, who constantly exercised miraculous power in their behalf. They neither sowed nor reaped, and therefore received no harvest.
9. Prosper. Literally, “show oneself attentive to,” “act circumspectly,” “manifest prudence.” It refers more to wise management, to showing oneself skillful in all one’s personal affairs (see Deut. 32:29; Joshua 1:8; Ps. 101:2; Dan. 12:3).
10. Captains. Literally, “heads.”
Elders. Probably the 70 elders spoken of in Num. 11:16 and the judges (see Deut. 19:12, 18; 21:2, 4, 6; 25:8).
Officers. The civil officers, who executed the sentences passed down by the judges (see ch. 16:18).
11. Stranger. Referring principally to the Egyptians who came out of Egypt with them (see chs. 5:14; 24:14; 31:12).
Hewer of thy wood. Perhaps better, “the gatherer of thy firewood,” in harmony with the use of the same root in Arabic.
12. His oath. The first occurrence of the word thus translated, in Deuteronomy. It is used in the sense of a covenant sealed with an oath, with the suggestion of curses upon failure to abide by the terms of the covenant. See this same Hebrew word in Num. 5:21.
15. Not here. The covenant was to include all future generations.
16. Land of Egypt. They were fully acquainted by personal experience with life in Egypt, with all its idolatry and attendant immorality.
The nations. Referring to the Amalekites, Edomites, Midianites, Ammonites,and Moabites.
17. Their abominations. Better, “their detestable things,” that is, all things pertaining to heathen worship and customs.
18. Gall. The word translated “gall” appears as “venom” in ch. 32:33, “poison” in Job 20:16, and “hemlock” in Hosea 10:14. The word translated “wormwood” is similarly translated in all other texts except Amos 6:12, where it is given as “hemlock.” These terms are suggestive of the bitter consequences of idolatry.
19. Bless himself. That is, seek to convince himself through a process of rationalization that none of the curses would fall upon him, but that he would enjoy the good things of life.
The imagination. Better, “the stubbornness.”
To add drunkenness to thirst. Literally, “to the intent to sweep away the drenched with the dry.” This was probably a proverbial expression implying the destruction of many who had been wrongly influenced by others.
20. His name. That is, the man himself. He and his posterity were to be utterly destroyed (see chs. 7:24; 9:14; 25:19).
22. Shall say. That is, the statement of v. 24. Future generations of the people of the land, and also visitors, would remark in astonishment about the calamities that God visited upon the rebellious people.
23. Sodom, and Gomorrah. Symbols of destruction resulting from great wickedness (see Gen. 18:20; 19:24, 25; cf. Job 18:15; for contrast, see Isa. 61:11).
25. Forsaken the covenant. See 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Jer. 22:9. For hundreds of years the land of Palestine has been spread before all men as a witness to the curse of God. Much of the country has long been a barren wilderness. This came upon the land because of the apostasy of the Jewish nation in forsaking the covenant. Men are often puzzled that a land so forbidding as Palestine is today could ever have been described as “flowing with milk and honey” (Ex. 3:8; etc.; see on Gen. 12:6).
27. The anger. Compare Jer. 21:5; 32:37. The word translated “anger” is sometimes rendered “nostrils” (see Gen. 2:7; Ex. 15:8; Num. 11:20; 2 Sam. 22:9, 16; Job 4:9; 27:3; Ps. 18:8; etc.). It often implies quick breathing through the nose as an indication of emotion.
28. Rooted them out. Literally, “plucked them out.” The eventual loss of Canaan was not the result of a set of circumstances that merely happened. They were “plucked out” by God Himself.
29. The secret things. Many commentators, including Jewish, have applied these words to secret sins, known only to God, as in Ps. 19:12. The parallel expression, however, “those things which are revealed,” that is, “unto us,” implies that the “secret things” are things God has not seen fit to reveal. Man cannot fathom the inner counsels of the Almighty. They are His. The things He has revealed, of law and life, are ours to contemplate. In the Scriptures we have the revealed will of God; it is all ours.
1. Call them to mind. Literally, “bring them back to thy heart.” Note the same expression in 1 Kings 8:47. It would be necessary for them to meditate upon the causes of their exile and their relation to Jehovah as a preliminary to their restoration to God’s favor (see Lev. 26:40; Deut. 4:29, 30).
2. Return. There must also be a turning away from sin and a return to the worship of Jehovah (see Neh. 1:8, 9). Sincerity would be reflected in obedience.
3. Turn thy captivity. Compare Ps. 14:7; 85:1-3; 126:1, 4; Eze. 16:53. It is not a deliverance from physical captivity that is most important, but rather deliverance from captivity to sin (see Ps. 41:4; Jer. 3:22; 17:14; Hosea 14:4; Matt. 13:15).
4. The outmost parts of heaven. The prophet Nehemiah refers to the promise of this verse (Neh. 1:8, 9). For a similar expression see Deut. 4:32; Ps. 19:4; Isa. 13:5. Jehovah would not cast off His people; as individuals He has never rejected them. Dispersion was to be their punishment. Divine chastisement always has a particular objective. When that effect is brought about, God turns to His child with offers of, and help to accomplish, restoration (see Job 23:10; Hosea 6:1-3; Heb. 12:11).
5. Do thee good. See Jer. 32:42, 43 for the way in which the Lord proposed to fulfill this promise.
6. Will circumcise thine heart. Compare Lev. 26:41; Jer. 31:33. To circumcise the heart means to quicken one’s spiritual perception and make tender one’s conscience.
7. Upon thine enemies. Genuine repentance reverses the curse that follows waywardness. There is no separation between God and the sinner so wide and deep that it cannot be closed up immediately, upon the sinner’s turning again to God. The joy of God is complete when a man turns to Him, for then the blessings of heaven can be poured out. It is the persistent sinner who must suffer the full curse of sin.
8. Return. To retrace one’s steps, as from a journey. It is often used figuratively of turning to God in humble repentance (see Isa. 10:21; 19:22; Jer. 4:1; 15:19; 18:11; Eze. 18:23; etc.).
9. Make thee plenteous. When a man loves God and obeys His will (see John 14:15), because he takes delight in God’s requirements (see 1 John 5:3), then it is that the divine principles become enshrined in his heart (see Ps. 40:8). This allows God to invigorate the soul and life of that man, and add material blessings (see Deut. 28:63; Jer. 32:41; Matt. 6:33).
10. The law. From torah, which refers to God’s revealed will in general. The Jews also applied it to the Pentateuch, and even to the entire OT.
11. It is not hidden. Literally, “not is it too hard,” that is, not too difficult to understand (see Gen. 18:14; Deut. 17:8; Jer. 32:17, 27; etc.).
12. Who shall go? It is possible that vs. 12 and 13 quote a proverbial saying. The meaning is that one is not required to undertake some superhuman task, to make a long, laborious journey, or seek to climb up into heaven in order to understand God’s will for man. God has clearly revealed His mind to Israel, through His prophet Moses. His righteous requirements have been written down; man is fully informed. Compare the argument of the apostle Paul (Rom. 10:5-13).
14. Nigh unto thee. Moses had not only declared God’s will by word of mouth but had also put it in writing. Compare the defense of Paul (Acts 20:26, 27; Phil. 1:8).
20. He is thy life. Better, “that is thy life,” that is, to love God. To have one’s life inspired and directed by the love of God is to inherit eternal life. The possibilities of life for every man are ultimately reduced to two. One is to love God with all one’s powers. The end result is life in all its fullness, ultimately merging into immortality. The alternative is a disregard of God’s good pleasure, with one’s life devoted to the things of this earth. A life spent persistently in such a way leads to eternal death. These alternatives challenge every man and woman born into the world. Here ends Moses’ fourth oration.
1. Moses went. Jewish commentators take these words to mean that Moses here concluded his exhortations to the people gathered before him. Then he went from tribe to tribe to give the news of his approaching death, and to exhort the people to uphold and support Joshua, his successor.
2. This day. He evidently knew that his work was almost finished. He died soon after this (ch. 34:7). When Moses stood before Pharaoh he was 80 years old (Ex. 7:7). Since then the 40 years of the desert wanderings had passed.
No more go. He appeared to be strong and vigorous (see Deut. 34:7; Joshua 14:11).
3. Before thee. Compare Deut. 9:3; Ex. 23:23. The ark and the presence of God would go before them (see Joshua 3:5, 11).
5. Give them up. See chs. 7:23; 9:3.
All the commandments. That is, the various injunctions that God had given for the destruction of the “groves,” idols, and altars of the heathen (see chs. 7:2-5, 25; 12:1-3).
6. Be strong. A call to the people to exercise faith.
Fear not. The same injunction had been given to their fathers (see chs. 1:21, 29; 3:2, 22; 7:17, 18, 21), but the older generation had been faithless (see ch. 1:28-32).
Go with thee. This promise had been given before (see ch. 20:4).
Not fail … thee. See the promise made to Joshua after the death of Moses (Joshua 1:5). The apostle Paul applies this experience to the Christian church (see Heb. 13:5).
Moses had lived a long and eventful life. He had served God and His people unselfishly and tirelessly. On earth he could never be greater than he was at that moment; yet God had more in store for him, in the heavenly Canaan. Compare the experience of Paul (2 Tim. 4:6-8).
7. Joshua. The new leader by God’s appointment (see Num. 27:18-21). Joshua means “the salvation of Jehovah.” He is first mentioned in Ex. 17:9. Like Moses, he had received an appropriate preparation for his work. He had been associated with Moses in the giving of the law, in battle, and in leadership. Like the 12 apostles selected by Christ, he was given special training in experience and association.
8. Will not fail. From the common verb, “to leave destitute” (see Gen. 24:27; Ps. 16:10).
9. This law. From torah, a term inclusive of all the revealed will of God. Nehemiah refers to Ex. 13:2, 12; 23:19, and speaks of what is “written in the law” (Neh. 10:35, 36). Josiah carried out the injunctions of Lev. 19:30; 20:6, 27, and said he was doing “the words of the law” (2 Kings 23:24). Hezekiah gave command to carry out the charges of Num. 28 and 29, “written in the law” (2 Chron. 31:3).
Bare the ark. See Deut. 10:8; Joshua 3:3, 6; 6:6; 1 Kings 8:3, 4.
10. Year of release. The word translated “release” is from a form of the verb shamat, “to throw down.” In Ex. 23:11 it is rendered “rest.” The reference here is to the sabbatical year, when the land was to “rest” and when there was release from debt (see Deut. 15:1-10). The “release” of a man who had sold himself into servitude came after six full years of service (see Deut. 15:12); for him, the “seventh year” did not necessarily coincide with the sabbatical year, the “year of release.” The reading year of the law came at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the 15th of Tishri. The sabbatical year evidently began, like the 50th year, the year of jubilee, in Tishri. The year of jubilee officially opened with the blowing of trumpets at the close of the Day of Atonement, on the 10th of Tishri (see Lev. 25:9).
11. Read this law. The law was also read on other occasions (see Joshua 8:34; 2 Kings 23:2; Neh. 8:1-3). A reverential reading of the Word of God is a stabilizing factor in any man’s life. It is a good thing to hear what the Lord says to His saints (see Ps. 85:8). The Levites were commanded to teach the Scriptures to the people (see Deut. 33:10; Lev. 10:11; Mal. 2:7).
12. Hear. The sequence is hear, learn, fear the Lord, observe the law (see chs. 4:10; 14:23; 17:19).
13. Their children. One of the outstanding privileges accorded the Jews was the committal to them of the Word of God (see Rom. 3:1, 2). The plan of redemption, the wonders of the future kingdom—all are recorded in His Word. It is folly for children to be allowed to grow up in ignorance of the Word. The Scriptures were written to be read and meditated upon. Their wisdom is to be the heritage of our children. To fail to give proper religious training to the young is to fail in a primary duty.
14. Present yourselves. Literally, “take your stand” (see Ex. 33:7).
A charge. Compare ch. 3:28, where Moses was commanded to charge Joshua. Joshua’s leadership was to entail great responsibilities.
Presented themselves. Literally, “took their stand.” Presumably they stood in the court facing the door of the tabernacle, over which the glory of God would appear.
15. The Lord appeared. On special occasions the pillar of cloud that rested upon the tabernacle (see Num. 9:15, 18) would move to the door of the tabernacle. Here, Jehovah’s glory shone through it (see Ex. 33:9, 10; 40:35).
16. Behold. Meaning, “pay attention.” What follows is most important.
Sleep. See the same expression for death in 2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10; 11:43.
This people. A sad picture of the future history of God’s people.
Whoring. See on Ex. 34:15. There were certain tendencies already manifest that indicated the future conduct of the nation (see Judges 2:7-17). The psalmist has recorded a sad chapter in Israel’s history (see Ps. 106:34-39). They were told not to fear the heathen gods (Judges 6:10), and knew well their duty to the true God (Ex. 20:3).
Break my covenant. By the worship of other gods (see Ex. 20:22, 23; 23:32, 33; Deut. 5:3, 4; 6:3, 4). In entering into the covenant relationship they had agreed to recognize the Lord as God, and to love and serve Him only.
17. My anger. So in Judges 2:14 at their first apostasy after crossing the Jordan.
Hide my face. This means a withdrawal of God’s protecting hand (see Deut. 32:20; Isa. 8:17; 64:7; Eze. 7:22; 39:23).
God is not among us. See Jer. 14:9; Micah 3:11; cf. Isa. 12:6; Zeph. 3:15, 17.
19. This song. See 32:1. The Israelites would learn to sing the song, and thereby hand it down from generation to generation. It would thus ever remain vivid in their memories, and bind them to the lofty principles for which Moses stood.
21. Imagination. The word here translated “imagination” is from a verb root meaning “to devise in one’s mind,” “to devise,” “to establish,” “to form.” The derived noun form is used of an impulse of the mind, a device, a purpose. The plannings, inclinations, and designs already in the heart of many were open to God (see 1 Chron. 28:9; and Ps. 103:14, “frame”).
23. Good courage. The Lord repeated this to Joshua after the death of Moses (see Joshua 1:6, 7, 9; cf. 10:25).
25. The Levites. See 1 Kings 8:3. It was their assigned privilege and duty to approach the ark when commanded to do so.
26. In the side. See 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chron. 5:10; cf. Deut. 29:21; 30:10. Jewish commentators are divided in their views respecting these words. Some maintain the written scroll was placed inside the ark with the two tables of stone, others, that it was placed in a compartment formed at the right side of the ark by a projecting board. The definite statement that “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb” (2 Chron. 5:10) confirms the latter suggestion. The RSV reads, “by the side of the ark” (Deut. 31:26). The principles inscribed upon the two tables of stone were of such a nature as to place them in a class by themselves. The Decalogue was supreme; the “book” containing “the words of this law” (Deut. 31:24) was an amplification and application of its principles to the economy of Israel.
27. Stiff neck. The word translated “stiff” also has the meaning of “hard,” “serve,” “difficult,” “stubborn” (see Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15). The people were set in their ways, and it was difficult if not impossible for them to change.
29. Latter days. This same expression occurs for the first time in Gen. 49:1, where it is translated “last days” (see Num. 24:14; Deut. 4:30). This expression is used with considerable latitude in the OT. Generally it refers simply to the future.
30. Moses spake. Joshua was associated with him in this (see ch. 32:44). Moses, the great legislator, was about to lay down his burdens. A younger man, a soldier, was to take up the task of leading Israel in the conquest of Palestine. Jehovah had strengthened Moses; He would also go before Joshua.
1. Ye heavens. Moses opens his song by calling upon men and angels to give ear to the words the Holy Spirit has put in his mouth. These are to be witnesses (see on ch. 31:28) to the majesty and power of God. Compare the psalmist (Ps. 50:4), Isaiah (Isa. 1:2; 34:1), and Micah (Micah 1:2). This is reminiscent of the song of Moses at the Red Sea (Ex. 15).
2. My doctrine. Literally, “my taking,” from the verb “to take.” The idea is that of receiving in order to pass on to others. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth of how he had delivered over to them the instruction he had received from God (see 1 Cor. 11:2). Paul even used language similar to that of Moses (see 1 Cor. 11:23).
As the rain. A symbol of refreshment (see Job 29:23; Ps. 72:6).
Speech. Also translated as “word” (see Deut. 33:9; 2 Sam. 22:31; Ps. 12:6) and as “commandment” (see Ps. 147:15).
As the dew. The word translated “dew” is from the verb root “to be moist,” “to rain fine rain,” that is, mist. The dew is a symbol of gentle, refreshing speech, as here, of unity among brethren (see Ps. 133:3), of royal favor (see Prov. 19:12), and of God’s tender mercies to His people (see Hosea 14:5).
Tender herb. Literally, “grass,” as in Gen. 1:11, 12; 2 Sam. 23:4.
Grass. From the usual word for vegetation, particularly vegetables suitable for human use (see Gen. 1:11, 12, 29, 30; 3:18; 9:3).
3. I will publish. His song was to be of God’s goodness, of His gracious kindnesses to men (see Ex. 34:6).
4. Rock. This occurs some 30 times in the OT as a descriptive title for Christ, King and Leader of the Hebrew theocracy. Here is the first instance of its use in reference to Jehovah (see also vs. 15, 18, 30, 31). Compare Hannah’s use of it in 1 Sam. 2:2; David’s in Ps. 18:2, 31, 46; 19:14 (where “my strength” is literally “my rock”); 28:1; 62:2, 7; and many others. The final instance of its use in the OT is in Hab. 1:12, where “O mighty God” literally reads, “O Rock.”
The solid rock, the towering mountain, the range of hills, are suggestive of many of God’s attributes. His eternity is thought of in terms of the eternal hills (see Ps. 90:2). The impregnability of the castle with its towers on the mountaintop is a symbol of the unassailable defense of God, and of His care for His children (see Ps. 18:2; Dan. 2:35). The Lord is also depicted under the same figure as a safe dwelling place, a shelter and a shade (see Ps. 90:1; Isa. 32:2), and again, as the foundation upon which the church rests (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11), and upon which the individual Christian is to build his house of faith (Matt. 7:24).
Jehovah is the only true Rock. The mountains are a symbol of His unswerving faithfulness, His changeless character, and His loyalty to the church and to its individual members. The word “rock” is never applied to men.
Perfect. God never leaves His work unfinished or imperfect. He will carry through the plan of salvation to its perfect end.
Judgment. Rather, “justice” (RSV; cf. Isa. 61:8). All of God’s dealings are consistent with His righteous nature. His decisions are irreproachable, and His ways with all created beings are without fault. He is indeed “a God of judgment” (Isa. 30:18).
Truth. The word “truth” here does not refer to true doctrine, that is, to a body of beliefs. Rather it refers to “faithfulness” as a principle. He is a God who is true to Himself, who acts in harmony with His own divine attributes. The word is from the verb “to be sure,” “to be firm.”
Without iniquity. It is impossible for Jehovah to do wrong, to deceive anyone, to have any ethical or moral defects. He is Himself His own standard of conduct, and the standard for all created beings.
5. Corrupted themselves. The Hebrew text is obscure. A literal rendering of the first two expressions would probably be, “corruption is not his; his children, theirs is the blemish.” It seems that a contrast between God and His people is intended, between His perfection and their imperfection.
Perverse. The word thus translated is from a root meaning “to twist.” Applied to the heart, lips, mouth, or ways, it denotes crookedness and the pursuit of devious methods in order to achieve questionable objectives. Using this verb root Isaiah says, “They have made them crooked paths” (Isa. 59:8; see also (Prov. 2:15). The English word “perverse” is not adequate to the Hebrew sense; “perverted” is closer, for the Hebrew term includes the idea of making everything crooked that should be straight, a “twisting” of things.
Crooked. The second adjective, here rendered “crooked,” emphasizes the meaning of the first one. It occurs only this once in the Bible, and may be rendered “tortuous.” The root appears in 2 Sam. 22:27 as “unsavoury,” and in Ps. 18:26 as “froward.”
It is certain that Moses here describes this generation as crooked, unruly, intractable. Christ’s description of His generation is comparable (see Matt. 16:4; 17:17), as also Paul’s comments (see 1 Thess. 2:15; 2 Thess. 3:2).
6. Requite the Lord. The Hebrew word order is emphatic: “Is it Jehovah ye reward thus?” A reprimand for the senseless way they dealt with Jehovah.
Foolish. From nabal, denoting their senseless obstinancy in ignoring the goodness of God.
Unwise. Lacking discernment, discrimination, wisdom.
Thy father. Israel was Jehovah’s child by adoption (see Eze. 16:6).
Established thee. In reference to their growth, orderly development, and progress under God’s hand.
7. The days of old. An admonition to go back as far in their history as they could and to recount all the instances of deliverance from danger (see Isa. 63:11).
Elders. Men of experience and age who have preserved the knowledge of God’s providences. Such men were their sources of historical information. It was an age when books were scarce in any form, and information was handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation.
8. Divided. See Gen. 10:5, 25, 32. The sense is that of apportioning to each of the nations its inheritance (see Acts 17:26).
Separated the sons of Adam. Better, “in his separating the children of men” (see on Gen. 1:26; 3:17; see also Gen. 11:8, 9), inasmuch as the separation into nations came after Babel.
Set the bounds. Many Jewish commentators take this to mean that Jehovah guarded the growth and spread of the nations, in order that there might be sufficient room for a numerous Israel. The statement of Moses may refer to the fact that God has guided the destinies of the nations with respect to His own people, that through them all men might come to a knowledge of Him (see Acts 17:26, 27).
9. Portion. Literally, “share,” “possession,” “part.” Compare “mine inheritance” (Ps. 16:5); also the counterpart idea, that God is our “portion” or possession (see Ps. 119:57; 142:5; Lam. 3:24).
10. In a desert. As if Israel had been an unwanted infant cast out to die, and Jehovah had so found him (see Jer. 2:2; Eze. 16:5, 6; Hosea 9:11).
Led him about. Literally, “surrounded him about.” That is, God encircled Israel with protection and infinite mercies (see Ps. 32:10). Thus He always protects His people (see Ps. 34:7).
Instructed him. Taught him, as a father would his child (see Ex. 20:1, 2; 34:1, 10).
The apple of his eye. Literally, “the pupil of his eye.” The expression thus translated is from the same root as the word for “man,” and may refer, as some think, to the image reflected in the eye. The eye is perhaps the most sensitive organ of the body, and one that a man unconsciously protects more carefully than any other. God regards His people with equal care (see Isa. 49:15).
11. As an eagle. This is a further development of the simile given in Ex. 19:4. It suggests God’s gentle leading and protection (see Deut. 1:31; Hosea 11:3).
Beareth them. This word picture suggests the loving care of Jehovah for His people, particularly during their wayward conduct in the wilderness (see Acts 13:18). God’s care and His acts of discipline are always for the purpose of developing character (see Heb. 12:11; Rev. 3:19). He designs that men should become aware of the possibilities inherent in sonship with God.
12. The Lord alone. The help of other gods was pure imagination. In contrast, the power of Jehovah was all-sufficient (see Ps. 81:10; Hosea 13:4).
13. On the high places. A figure of speech suggestive of the triumphant leading of God (see Amos 4:13). Compare the promise applicable today to the remnant church (see Isa. 58:13, 14).
The increase. Due to the beneficent care of God and the blessing He would add to their labors, and lives of obedience (see Matt. 6:33).
Honey out of the rock. An allusion to the many wild bees to be found in the rocky crevices of Palestine. Honey is used to illustrate divine teachings (see Prov. 24:13, 14), also as a figure of the righteous judgments of God (see Ps. 19:9-11), and His Word (see Ps. 119:103). Here, its primary reference is to the natural bounties of Canaan.
Oil out of the flinty rock. Nothing good would be lacking. Oil, or “fatness,” is a symbol of prosperity and luxury (see Eze. 16:13, 19).
14. Butter. Better, “curdled milk,” not the modern butter. This was a symbol of abundance (see Job 20:17; cf. Gen. 18:8; Judges 5:25; 2 Sam. 17:29).
Milk of sheep. Better, “milk of the flock,” referring more particularly to the milk of goats. The word translated “sheep” is the usual one for a flock of either sheep or goats.
Fat of lambs. Perhaps better, “fat of rams,” inasmuch as the noun here is masculine.
Bashan. Famous for its pastures (see Num. 32:1-5).
Kidneys of wheat. Or, “kernels of wheat,” denoting an unusually fine crop.
Blood of the grape. Compare Gen. 49:11.
15. Jeshurun. A poetical name for Israel (see Deut. 33:5, 26; Isa. 44:2). It is derived from the verb “to be straight,” “to be upright,” and is applied to Israel as “the upright one.” It is probably used here in reproach, of an apostate Israel that would fall far short of God’s ideal for His people.
Waxed fat. When Israel became prosperous they rebelled against Him who had given them prosperity (see Jer. 5:28; Hosea 2:8; 4:16).
Lightly esteemed. Or, “scoffed at.” Literally, “treated as a fool.” For this same verb, see “hast done foolishly” (Prov. 30:32), “make thee vile” (Nahum 3:6), “dishonoureth” (Micah 7:6). And the adjective of the same root: “foolish” (Deut. 32:6, 21), “fool” (Ps. 14:1; 53:1; Prov. 17:7, 21; 30:22; Jer. 17:11), “foolish prophets” (Eze. 13:3).
16. Provoked him. By idolatrous abominations Israel, like an unfaithful wife, provoked the Lord their God to jealousy (Ex. 34:14; Isa. 54:5).
17. Sacrificed unto devils. Compare 1 Cor. 10:19, 20. The supreme abomination of heathen worship was the sacrifice of children to demons (see Ps. 106:37). A sinful course seems to proceed by almost imperceptible stages. The first step may not be a positive act of lawlessness but rather a negative sin, the omission of some positive requirement. One step leads to another, until there may result a complete reversal of one’s former conduct. Yet it seems almost beyond belief that God’s chosen people could have worshiped devils and offered their own sons and daughters as sacrificial offerings. To stray from God’s path may lead to the most fearful alternatives, as it did for Israel.
Came newly up. Or, “lately arrived.” Compare Isaiah’s graphic description (Isa. 44:15; see also Judges 5:8).
Feared not. The Hebrew verb expresses dread, horror, as, for example, “be horribly afraid” (Jer. 2:12; Eze. 32:10).
Forgotten God. They would be completely absorbed in idolatry.
That formed thee. See Ex. 19:5, 6; cf. Jer. 2:27; the apostle Paul’s teaching (1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10; Gal. 4:19).
19. Abhorred. Literally, “spurned,” or “despised.” For other instances of this verb see Prov. 1:30; 5:12; 15:5; Lam. 2:6.
20. Hide my face. He would leave them to their own devices (see ch. 31:17, 18).
Froward. That is, addicted to the perversion and evasion of truth and right conduct.
No faith. They would prove completely untrustworthy. They could not be relied upon.
Not God. Or, “a no-god.” The idols they worshiped represented gods that did not exist. There were no gods working in and through the idols.
Not a people. Literally, “a no-people.”
A foolish nation. A further description of the “no-people” in the preceding sentence.
Many Jewish commentators refer this to the first destruction of the Temple by the Chaldeans, quoting: “Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not” (Isa. 23:13; cf. Hab. 1:5, 6). The commentators maintain that the Chaldeans had no national status of any moment until God raised them up to punish Israel. But this argument is historically invalid. The apostle Paul applies Deut. 32:21 to the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles, upon the refusal of the Jewish nation to accept the Messiah (see Rom. 10:19; cf. 1 Thess. 2:15, 16). See also the words of Christ in Matt. 21:43, 44.
22. Fire. A symbol of great calamities (see Eze. 30:8) or a flaring up of anger (see Jer. 15:14; 17:4). “Hell” is a figure of destruction (see Prov. 15:11; Ps. 86:13).
The lowest hell. Literally, “the depths of Sheol” (RSV), that is, of the “grave.” A figurative expression denoting total extinction.
The mountains. Jewish commentators speak of Jerusalem as established upon and encompassed by mountains (see Ps. 125:2), and refer to the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar as fulfilling, in part, this prediction (see 2 Kings 25:1-7).
23. Spend mine arrows. A figure of speech referring to God’s judgments (see Ps. 7:12, 13; 38:2; 91:5; Lam. 3:12, 13; Eze. 5:16).
24. Burnt with hunger. Literally, “the wastings of hunger.” The verb root means “to suck out,” and the adjective, as here, means “sucked out” or “empty” from hunger.
Burning heat. Literally, “the firebolt.” Compare the following verses having the same Hebrew word: Ps. 78:48, “hot thunderbolts”; S. of Sol. 8:6, “coals”; Hab. 3:5, “burning coals”; Ps. 76:3, “arrows.”
Serpents. Or, “creeping things.” The word here translated “serpents” is from the root “to crawl,” “to creep.” In Micah 7:17 the same word is translated “worms.”
25. The sword. This verse portrays warfare as the climax of evils. It would spare neither age nor sex, and no place could afford safety from its effects (see Jer. 9:19-22; Lam. 1:20; Eze. 7:15).
26. Scatter them into corners. Literally, “cleave them to pieces.” The Hebrew reading is not clear. Some commentators suggest, “I will blow them away,” that is, utterly disperse them.
27. I feared. Not that Jehovah experiences fear as men do. He often speaks in language adapted to human understanding (see Num. 14:13-16; Ex. 32:12).
Behave. That is, fail to recognize the true facts of the case.
Our hand is high. Boasting that they were victorious over Israel solely on account of their own superiority, failing to realize that Jehovah had granted them the victory (see Isa. 10:5-11; Hab. 1:15, 16).
28. Void of counsel. The word here translated “void” is from the verb “to perish,” “to destroy,” “to be lost,” and is so translated in practically every instance of the some 200 times the verb is found in the OT. It can be rendered “perishing of counsel.” That is, they were following thoroughly bad counsel given by false shepherds, and were perishing as a result (see Jer. 18:18). For other texts using this root, see Lev. 26:38; Joshua 23:16; 2 Kings 9:8; Esther 4:16; Job 18:17; etc. The precise form used here is also translated as “perish” (Deut. 26:5; Job 4:11; 29:13; 31:19), “broken” (Ps. 31:12), and “lost” (1 Sam. 9:20; Ps. 119:176).
29. Their latter end. The KJV has omitted the preposition “to,” as in the original: “they would discern clear through to their latter end.”
30. Sold them. This verse depicts a complete reversal of their fortunes, due to their having forsaken Jehovah (see Lev. 26:8, 17, 36, 37; Deut. 28:25).
Shut them up. See the same verb, here translated “shut up,” rendered as “delivered” (1 Sam. 24:18), “given up” (Lam. 2:7), “deliver up” (Amos 6:8).
31. Their rock. The heathen nations trusted their gods for victory and success. But when they witnessed the power of Jehovah they were forced to acknowledge His infinite superiority to their gods (see Ex. 14:25; Num. 23, 24; Joshua 2:9; 1 Sam. 5:7). On the Rock of Israel, see on Deut. 32:4.
32. Vine. The heathen nations are here regarded as offshoots of the noxious plant Sodom and Gomorrah. Their stock was evil; therefore their fruit was poisonous (see Jer. 2:21). Israel was also compared to a vine (see Isa. 5:2, 7; Hosea 10:1).
33. Dragons. The word thus translated is from the root “to stretch out,” “to extend.” The literal meaning of the derived noun is “the extended ones,” in reference to body length. Elsewhere it appears as “whales” (Gen. 1:21), “serpent” (Ex. 7:9, 10, 12), “sea monsters” (Lam. 4:3).
Asps. Generally supposed to be related to the cobra. The same word is also given as “adder” (Ps. 58:4; 91:13).
35. Vengeance, and recompense. As the Creator and Lord of the universe Jehovah is its judge. Compare the apostle Paul’s use of this expression (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30).
Their calamity. Compare the warnings concerning Chaldean Babylon (Isa. 47:7-10; 51:6, 8), and the application to spiritual Babylon (Rev. 18:8, 10, 17).
36. Judge his people. That is, vindicate His people and defend them before their enemies (see Jer. 50:34). See also Rachel’s experience (Gen. 30:6), the psalmist’s prayer (Ps. 54:1), and the prophecy of King Lemuel (Prov. 31:9).
Repent himself. Turn His hand from His people to smite their enemies, by whom He has chastised them—for example, Babylon (see Jer. 50:23; 51:24). For God’s “repenting,” see on Num. 23:19.
Their power is gone. Literally, “their hand is exhausted.” The hand is a symbol of power and the ability to carry through a project (see Isa. 28:2; cf. Ps. 76:5; 78:42).
38. Let them rise. See Isa. 46:1, 2, 7; cf. 1 Kings 18:27.
39. I, even I. Note the repeated pronoun, and compare Hosea 5:14; Isa. 43:11, 25; 51:12.
40. Lift up my hand. The sign of a solemn vow. Compare the experience of Abraham (Gen. 14:22), and that of the children of Israel on entering Canaan (Ex. 6:8; Neh. 9:15). Compare the solemn oath of the angel of Rev. 10:5.
41. Mine enemies. Jehovah is often depicted in poetic imagery as a warrior, combating the enemies of His people (see Ex. 15:3; Isa. 14:13). To oppose God’s people is to set oneself up as an enemy of God and to fight against Him.
42. Arrows. Figurative of great slaughter (see Isa. 34:5, 6; 66:16). Compare the words of Christ respecting scenes connected with His second coming (Matt. 24:36-44; Mark 13:35-37), and the prophecy of Peter (2 Peter 3:10).
43. Merciful. God’s mercy upon His land and his people. These words will meet their complete fulfillment in relation to the saved in the new earth (see Rev. 21:1-7). The apostle Paul quotes this verse to show that the Gentiles must partake of the salvation made available by Christ (see Rom. 15:10).
44. He, and Hoshea. A repetition of Deut. 31:30, except that Hoshea, that is, Joshua (see Num. 13:8, 16) is mentioned as the colaborer of Moses (see Deut. 31:3, 7, 14, 23).
46. Set your hearts. Compare God’s exhortation to Ezekiel (Eze. 40:4).
Your children. This instruction concerning the training of the children had already been given a number of times (see chs. 4:10; 6:7; 11:19).
47. Not a vain thing. The service of God never goes without its reward (see ch. 30:20).
49. Abarim. Abarim is understood to refer to a mountain range, of which one peak is Nebo. Instruction in respect to his death had been given Moses previously (see on Num. 27:12).
Behold the land. Moses was given the privilege of viewing the Promised Land with his natural sight. Beyond that, he saw, in vision, scenes from the history of God’s people down through the ages to the final consummation of all things (see PP 472-477).
50. Gathered unto thy people. See on Num. 20:24. Moses was obedient unto death, and his death was precious to God. In some respects he was a type of Christ. God raised him from his lonely resting place to dwell in the heavenly Canaan, and sent him to encourage Christ at His transfiguration (see Mark 9:2-4). Such a reward came to him as a faithful servant in his Lord’s house (see Heb. 3:5).
As Aaron. See Num. 20:24-28; 33:38.
51. Ye trespassed. See Num. 27:14.
Sanctified me not. “Did not revere me as holy” (RSV). See Num. 20:12; 27:14.
52. Not go thither. Moses earnestly desired the privilege of entering the Holy Land, but was denied it (see Deut. 1:37; 3:25, 27; cf. Heb. 11:13).
1. The blessing. Compare Gen. 49:1.
Before his death. See Deut. 32:49; compare Isaac (Gen. 27:7), Jacob (Gen. 50:16), David (1 Chron. 22:5).
2. From Sinai. The divine glory manifested on the occasion of the promulgation of the law (Ex. 19, 20) is pictured here as being reflected brilliantly from the peaks and slopes of the neighboring hills.
With ten thousands of saints. Literally, “from myriads of holy ones,” that is, from His dwelling place in heaven with its countless holy beings, where He sits enthroned in glory (see 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6; Ps. 89:7; Dan. 7:10). The preposition “with” is not an accurate rendition of the Hebrew. The picture is one of the celestial regions, where heavenly creatures await God’s pleasure (see Gen. 28:12; 32:2, 3; Ps. 103:21).
A fiery law. Compare Ex. 19:16, 18. Perhaps a clearer translation would be, “at his right was a burning fire for them,” suggesting the presence of the heavenly creatures (see Gal. 3:19).
3. Loved the people. The people were His children (see Ex. 4:22; 19:4).
All his saints. That is, the people of Israel, the holy nation (see Ex. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19).
Sat down. In a state of expectancy, awaiting the proclamation of God’s will.
Receive of thy words. The reference here would be to all that God revealed to them through Moses.
4. Commanded us a law. In using the pronoun “us” Moses identifies himself with his people.
5. King in Jeshurun. By the authority of, and under the hand of, God. During his lifetime Moses was prophet, priest, king, judge, and lawgiver to Israel. To be sure, in a strict sense, none but Jehovah was their King (see Ex. 15:18; Ps. 47:6, 7). Jeshurun is a poetic name for Israel.
6. Reuben. The second “not” in this verse was supplied by the translators, and is not in the Hebrew. An implied reference to his sin with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22). Reuben was the first-born (Gen. 49:3), but never attained to great national importance. Rather, this tribe dwindled constantly in numbers. Jacob had declared prophetically that he would not excel; Moses here assures the Reubenites that they will not entirely disappear from among Israel.
7. Judah. The meaning of the name is, perhaps, “praised” or “object of praise.” He was the son of Jacob and Leah; the meaning of his name is based on the words of his mother at the time of his birth (see Gen. 29:35). His father predicted his brethren would praise him (see Gen. 49:8). On the tribe of Judah, see Joshua 14:6; 1 Kings 12:20; 2 Kings 17:18; Ps. 78:68.
8. Levi. Next to Joseph, this tribe is mentioned most often in the books of Moses. In Jacob’s blessing, Simeon and Levi are joined together. Here Moses does not mention Simeon, inasmuch as Jacob had foretold that he would be scattered among his brethren (see Gen. 49:7).
Thummim. The tribe of Levi was to retain the high honor of spiritual leadership.
10. Incense. To offer incense was the special privilege of the priests (see Num. 16:6-10, 40; 1 Sam. 2:28).
11. Substance. The same Hebrew word is translated “wealth” in ch. 8:17, 18.
Accept. Recognize and appreciate his ministry.
Smite. The Levites were vested with civil as well as religious duties (see ch. 17:8-12). To rise up against them was to become an enemy of the state.
12. Benjamin. The child of his father’s old age, whom he loved.
Dwell between his shoulders. That is, to be carried on His back, or protected. God would protect Benjamin. Some commentators refer these words to the ridges of the territory of Benjamin (see Joshua 15:8; 18:13), and speak of Jerusalem as being in his territory.
13. Joseph. Here are reference to the blessing pronounced on Joseph (see Gen. 49:22-26). A rich soil is predicted, which would in turn ensure a high standard of living. The land allotted his descendants was well watered. Various crops of choice grains and fruit thrived there. His cattle were to be vigorous and healthy. His military strength was to be great.
16. The good will. The “good will” of God has filled this earth with seemingly inexhaustible riches, indications of His love for man. There is a sense in which this divine “good will” is over all (see Matt. 5:45). But in a special sense, however, God’s “good will” is over His chosen representatives on earth (see Gal. 3:26).
In the bush. These words refer to the presence of God at the burning bush (see Ex. 3:2, 4).
17. Ephraim. Jacob raised Ephraim to the position and rank of the firstborn (see Gen. 48:18, 19); therefore “ten thousands” are predicted for him, but only “thousands” for Manasseh.
18. Zebulun. Zebulun is here pictured as a maritime people. This is also reflected in the prophecy of Jacob (see Gen. 49:13). Many distinguished warriors arose from this tribe (see Judges 5:18; 1 Chron. 12:33).
Zebulun and Issachar were associated with Judah in the leading division in the wilderness (see Num. 2:5-7). As the last two sons of Leah, Moses here treats them together. Zebulun was the younger of the two, but is placed first, in harmony with Gen. 49:13.
19. Sacrifices. Their conduct and worship would be in harmony with God’s directives, and therefore pleasing to Him (see Ps. 4).
20. Gad. A warlike tribe that grew in numbers and in strength (see 1 Chron. 5:18-20; 12:8; cf. Gen. 49:19).
Lion. See 1 Chron. 12:8 for 11 Gadites “whose faces were like the faces of lions.”
21. The first part. The first territory conquered was divided by Moses between Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh (see Num. 32:1, 2, 33).
His judgments. The Gadites fulfilled their promise to cross over the Jordan and do their part in the conquest of Canaan, until the whole country was subdued (Num. 32:21, 22, 29).
22. Dan. Jacob compared him to a serpent, or an adder (see Gen. 49:17). He is here spoken of as a “lion’s whelp,” as was Judah (see Gen. 49:9; cf. Judges 18:25-31).
23. Naphtali. For the territory of Naphtali, see Joshua 19:32-39.
Satisfied with favour. Compare Ps. 145:16, for the blessings of God for His children.
West. Literally, “sea.” This could scarcely be the Mediterranean Sea, but rather the Sea of Chinnereth (ch. 3:17), that is, the Sea of Galilee.
25. Shoes. The word here translated “shoes” does not occur elsewhere in the OT. It is better translated “bars,” as is evident from Neh. 3:3, where a similar form is used. It is derived from the verb “to bolt,” “to shut fast.” The meaning here is perhaps that of impregnability, referring to Asher’s fortresses and homes. See Ps. 107:16; Isa. 45:2, where “iron” and “brass” are mentioned together with gates and bars. These materials are not generally mentioned in connection with shoes.
26. Rideth upon the heaven. A figure of speech to describe universal supremacy (see Ps. 18:8, 9; 68:33-35).
27. Thy refuge. See Ps. 90:1. A better translation would be “dwelling place.” See Deut. 26:15 for the same Hebrew word.
28. Dwell in safety. Jewish commentators apply these words to the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:25; cf. Jer. 23:6).
The fountain of Jacob. Generally taken to be a reference to the unfailing stream of descendants of the patriarch Jacob (see Isa. 48:1; cf. Ps. 68:26).
Liars. The surrounding people would approach Israel under the guise of friendship and humility in order to court their favor. The Hebrew root verb suggests fawning, cringing submission (see Ps. 18:44; 66:3; 81:14).
Tread upon. Be triumphant over their enemies (Amos 4:13; Micah 1:3). None would be able to stand before them.
The final verses of this chapter are an encouragement to have faith in God. He is supreme. He greatly blesses His faithful children, giving them security, peace, and an abundance of the good things of life. Finally, He will give them an eternal inheritance. God’s children should ever be of good courage.
1. Went up. God had so commanded him (see ch. 32:49).
Moab. The final station before entering Canaan (see Num. 33:48-50), the place from which God had issued directives (see Num. 35:1; 36:13), and from which Moses delivered to Israel the words of the book of Deuteronomy (see Deut. 1:5).
Nebo. See on ch. 32:49. There was a city of the same name (see Num. 32:38; Isa. 15:2) in the immediate vicinity.
Pisgah. The northern part of the Abarim range (see on Num. 27:12).
Shewed him. God had already promised Moses that he would be permitted to view the land of Canaan, though not to set foot on it (Num. 27:12; Deut. 3:27).
2. All Naphtali. The Lord gave Moses a view of the northern parts of the country, where Mt. Hermon and the hills of Naphtali can be seen in the distance, the central portions where Ephraim and Manasseh located, and the southern part wherein Judah settled.
The utmost sea. Some commentators refer this to the Salt Sea (see Num. 34:3), or Dead Sea, on the eastern border of Judah. It is better to understand it as the Mediterranean, hidden behind the hills of Judah.
3. South. The Negeb (see on Gen. 12:9; 13:1).
The plain. All the Jordan valley; in particular, the extremely beautiful plain of Jericho, through which the Jordan flows (see on Gen. 13:10). The word here translated “plain,” literally, “round” or “oval,” refers to the circular basin of the Jordan, particularly to that portion of it where the Jordan enters the Dead Sea. This same word is used of a round loaf of bread (see Ex. 29:23; Judges 8:5; 1 Sam. 10:3; 1 Chron. 16:3).
City of palm trees. The countryside adjacent to the city of Jericho has always been famous for its palms and its tropical climate (see Judges 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chron. 28:15). It made an ideal winter resort.
Zoar. Probably at the south end of the Dead Sea (see on Gen. 14:3, 10; 19:22, 24).
4. This is the land. See Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; Ex. 33:1. Moses saw it in all its beauty; for this he had prayed, and God heard him (see Deut. 3:23-29).
5. The servant. See Joshua 1:2, 7, where Jehovah calls Moses His servant. The apostle Paul says Moses “was faithful in all his house, as a servant” (Heb. 3:5). The word translated “servant” in the book of Hebrews is therapon. Our English words therapeutics, therapy, are derived from it. The term denotes sympathetic, faithful ministry, as of a physician at the bedside of a sick person. The untiring, loving, and tender solicitude of Moses for his people is placed on record to his credit and to the glory of God. It is interesting to note that the modern Greek word for “physician” is therapon.
According to the word of the Lord. Literally, “at the mouth of Jehovah” (see Num. 27:12-14).
6. Beth-peor. Literally, “the house of Peor.” This valley was in the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites (Deut. 4:46), but was in the possession of Israel at this time, and included in the inheritance of Reuben (Joshua 13:20). It was named after a heathen god called Peor, and his temple (Joshua 22:17).
Sepulchre. Only Jehovah knew the exact spot where death came to Moses. The devil would have been highly pleased to continue to hold Moses in the bonds of death (see Jude 9), and to that end resisted Christ. But Moses was raised up and taken to heaven (see Mark 9:2-4).
7. Natural force. Literally, “freshness,” “vigor.” Accordingly, the statement would read, “his freshness had not departed.” It can mean nothing less than that his physical powers were as fresh and vigorous at that point as they had ever been.
This is the closing scene of a truly great life. As far as physical companionship is concerned, Moses was alone in the death scene. But he died in the arms of God; that was sufficient (cf. Ps. 23:4). Death is not a pleasant prospect, but if it comes when one’s spirit is in intimate communion with the Spirit of God, there is no fear. Even though one must die in solitude, away from human help and sympathy, if he can die in the presence of God, that is a gracious end, full of hope.
8. Weeping and mourning. Upon the death of their peerless leader the people could not but feel a great void in the life of the nation. With what interest Moses must have followed the varying fortunes of Israel as he viewed them from heaven.
9. Joshua. This comparatively young leader was filled with the spirit of wisdom at the laying on of the hands of Moses. This “spirit of wisdom” included skill in both civil administration and military leadership. He had previously proved strong in faith, in courage, and in unswerving devotion to duty.
10. Face to face. A figure of speech to describe intimate association, friendship shared. Compare the experiences of Jacob (Gen. 32:30) and Gideon (Judges 6:22). No other human being ever had a closer association with Jehovah. He is justly known as the world’s greatest emancipator and lawgiver. He has influenced history throughout all succeeding time. A strong personality to begin with, Moses had a fellowship with God that greatly developed and strengthened his character.